Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Nottinghamshire and Deroyshire Tramways Bill.

Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill.

Bills committed.

Jarrow Extension and Improvement Bill (By Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill (by Order),

Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Port of London and Midland Railway Bill (by Order),

South Staffordshire Water Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Swansea Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Windsor Gas Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Stirling Corporation (Water, etc,) Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BUDGET.

Sir J. D. REES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the intention of the Legislature, to which Clause 3 of Section 67A of the Government of India Act of 1919 gives, or should give, expression, any, and if so what, action will, or can, be taken upon the vote of the Legislative Assembly in favour of submitting the whole of the Budget in March to the vote of that Assembly?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I can at present add nothing to the answer which I gave on 14th February to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton.

ARMY FAMILY PENSION FUND RULES.

Mr. RENDALL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what had been the decision of the Esher Committee on the question asked by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Thornbury Division) on 7th June last; and whether the Indian Military Service Family Pension Fund Rules will be so amended as to permit of a divorced officer continuing, if he so desires, his subscriptions to the fund in question so that the wife who divorced him may not lose the benefits thereof?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Esher Committee in their Report dated 22nd June, 1920, Part V., paragraph 19, suggested that the Indian Military Service Family Pension Regulations should be amended to provide that, where a wife divorces her husband, the surrender value of her pension should be paid to her. After careful consideration, it has been decided that no alteration of the regulations on this point is desirable.

MOPLAH TRAIN DISASTER.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether proceedings have been instituted against any person or persons arising out of the death by suffocation of the 64 Moplah prisoners on 19th November last;
and whether the type of railway van used on that occasion is being used for the conveyance of prisoners?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have not yet received the orders passed by the Madras Government. I am confident that every precaution is being taken against a repetition of the disaster.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If I put a question down in about a week's time, will the right hon. Gentleman have any further information to give on this question?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know when I get the telegram announcing the decision of the Madras Government. I am expecting it every moment.

Sir J. D. REES: Is it not already known that there is no objection to the type of wagon used on that occasion, but that the ventilator was unfortunately choked with paint?

Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety is that there should be no repetition of this incident, and I am anxious to assure him that every step is being taken to prevent a repetition of this occurrence.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has he read the strictures passed upon this class of wagon by the traffic superintendent of the line? Has he read the report containing the criticisms of the traffic superintendent upon the action of those Army officials who determined that the prisoners were to be carried in those particular wagons?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have only seen up to the present a telegraphic summary

MOPLAH REBELLION.

Sir J. D. REES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India what measures are being taken to preserve law and order in the affected portions of the Malabar district in view of the fact that martial law ceases automatically upon the 26th instant; and whether he has any statement to make as to the manner in which martial law has been enforced by the Government of Madras?

Mr. MONTAGU: The latest reports I have received indicate that when the operation of martial law ceases there
should be no difficulty in preserving order by the enforcement of the ordinary law. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the particulars of operations and statistics of judicial action which have already been published.

CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).

Mr. RAWLINSON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the pensions of uncovenanted civil servants, e.g., Indian forest officials, heads of colleges, etc., who have an agreement with the Secretary of State are permanently guaranteed by the British Government, or whether the responsibility of the British Government is intended to be put an end to by the granting of a measure of Home Rule?

Mr. MONTAGU: The pensions of members of all Civil Services in India have been for many years a statutory charge on the revenues of India, and no change in this respect was made by the Act of 1919. For an explanation of what may be the position under future legislation, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham on the 14th February, of which I will send him a copy, and to the despatch which I intend shortly to present to Parliament.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a permanent charge, in order that those on whose behalf I am asking this question need not insure their pensions?

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, it is a permanent charge.

CIVIL SERVICE (RETIREMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the number of applications for premature retirement which have up to the present been received from members of the Indian Civil Service; and what was the number of applications for posts in the Indian Service received from British subjects in the years 1913, 1914, 1919, 1920, and 1921, respectively?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have so far received 16 applications for premature retirement, but cannot yet say how many more have been received by, or are on their way to,
me from, the local Governments in India, to whom applications have to be addressed in the first instance. Except for a special provision under which subjects of native States in India may become eligible, all candidates for the Indian Civil Service are necessarily British subjects, but I have assumed that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind European candidates. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which he asks.

BOLSHEVIST AGENTS.

Sir F. HALL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the number of unsuccessful Bolshevist agents who are known to have been recalled from India by the Moscow Government; why these persons were allowed to carry on their propaganda in defiance of the terms of the Anglo-Russian trade agreement until voluntarily withdrawn by the Bolshevists themselves; and if he is in a position to give approximately the number of agents who are considered by the Soviet Government to be sufficiently successful to justify their retention in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend appears to base his question on the assumption that the reference which I made to Bolshevist agents in my statement last Tuesday was a reference to Bolshevist agents in India. That assumption is not correct. As regards the particulars for which he asks, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me that to make public any specific information that we may possess on this subject would be highly inexpedient.

Sir F. HALL: Am I to understand that my right hon. Friend does not attribute arty of the trouble at all to the Bolshevik propaganda in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend must distinguish between Bolshevik propaganda by agents in India and Bolshevik propaganda aimed at India from outside its frontiers.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that, because a man holds extreme views in carrying out propaganda in India, he is a Bolshevik?

Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir; I understand that there are people holding extreme
views on one side and the other side who are not Bolshevists.

Mr. THORNE: What is the definition of a Bolshevist?

GREECE (TRADE CREDITS).

Mr. L. MALONE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any evidence to show that the proposal to grant credits to Greece under the Trade Facilities Act with British guarantees, which will enable the Greeks to continue their attacks on Turkey, is reacting most unfavourably on Moslem sentiments and militating against the restoration of calm in India; and, if so, will he use his influence to defer granting these credits until peaceful relations are established between Greece and Turkey?

Mr. MONTAGU: It ought to be widely known in India that the facilities which are open to Greece are open to all foreign countries, including Turkey, and this knowledge should remove any apprehensions that may have been aroused.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WAR MEDALS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many men of the fighting services are under present regulations nut entitled to any war medals; and whether, in view of the decision of the Government to issue medals to special constables, he will reconsider this matter so that ex-service men shall not be placed in an inferior position to civilians?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The first part of the question could not be answered accurately without much research, but the number is in the neighbourhood of 1,500,000. In regard to the last part, the award of a medal for home services is under reconsideration.

ORDNANCE FACTORIES (EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. MILLS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the method of recruitment of labour in Woolwich Arsenal operates through the employ-
ment exchanges of the district; and what proportion of Woolwich residents discharged since the Armistice on reduction as distinct from those discharged for inefficiency have been re-employed?

Mr. MILLS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men of long service in the ordnance factories are being discharged, adding to the already heavy burden of the local authorities, while other men are brought from Bournemouth, Devonshire, Durham, and other places outside the area of London at a time of acute housing shortage; and will he inquire into this matter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The local Employment Exchanges are used for the engagement of labour at the ordnance factories, and preference is always given to Woolwich residents, unless no suitable local labour is available. Out of about 3,293 men engaged since the Armistice, 866 have been men living outside Woolwich Borough. These men were mainly bricklayers, carpenters, and men of other skilled trades, who were not available locally. Nearly all of them, however, have had previous service in the ordnance factories. Very few men are being engaged at the present time, but the rule of preferring local labour when it is available holds good, and the Employment Exchanges have instructions accordingly. In regard to the last part of Question No. 11. I regret that statistics as to the place of residence of the large numbers of employés (over 50,000) discharged from the factories since the Armistice are not available.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Woolwich statements are freely made by all sections of the population that Woolwich residents are excluded in favour of people brought in from all parts of the country who have to find house room in an already congested district, whilst there are thousands of local people unemployed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope that the hon. Member, now that I have given him the true facts, will aid me in contradicting those statements which are not correct.

Mr. MILLS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can furnish the respective ratio of officials with salaries of £500 and over in the central adminis-
tration of the ordnance factories in January, 1918, January, 1919, and January, 1922?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of posts at a basic salary of £500 or over was 10, 12 and 10 in the three years respectively.

Mr. MILLS: Having regard to the fact that the proportion in 1918 of the staff of 90,000 is proportionately the same, and probably the same number of officials are functioning with a staff less than 10,000, surely the right hon. Gentleman sees some room for economy at the top as well as at the bottom.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Every economy that is possible is being made, but it does not follow that these 10 officials having a basic salary of over £500 can be reduced.

IRISH REGIMENTS (DISBANDMENTS).

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has examined the records of the famous Irish regiments now about to be disbanded; and will he, in proof of the gratitude of Great Britain for their glorious deeds, give the flags and other trophies of the regiments, if deposited with him, an honoured place among the treasured possessions of the nation?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir. The Army Council fully appreciate the distinguished services of the regiments in question, and if their flags and other trophies are deposited with them they will charge themselves with the duty of disposing of them honourably.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to incorporate those regiments in a composite regiment? One of those regiments—the Royal Irish—served under the famous Duke of Marlborough, an ancestor of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary.

An HON. MEMBER: What steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to make provision for those officers who are compulsorily retired?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Although both these supplementary questions are important neither of them has anything to do with the question on the Paper.

SANDHURST COLLEGE (STAFF).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to make any reduction in the staff at Sandhurst for the training of cadets?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think any immediate reduction in the instructional staff of 62 persons for 700 cadets is practicable but I am reviewing the whole position.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask whether at the present moment there is a staff of 562 persons to look after 700 cadets?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The instructional staff number not 562 but 62.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I referred to the whole staff.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have said I am looking into the whole question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that 12 cadets are considered sufficient for an instructor at the Royal Military College, while under the Education Department a teacher has to instruct 50 pupils?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That question should not be addressed to me.

TROOPS, MIDDLE EAST.

Mr. LAMBERT: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War the numbers of the British and Indian forces in Mesopotamia and Palestine, respectively, and what is the approximate monthly cost of each force; and whether there have been any recent casualties caused by hostile action.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): It would be misleading to give actual figures at this stage, since reduction is steadily proceeding on the lines of the programme explained by me last year. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 16th February, I hope to make a full statement when introducing the Middle East Estimates. If the hon. Member will specify the exact period over which he desires information as to casualties, I shall be happy to supply it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why does the right hon. Gentleman find it inconvenient to give the figures for the information of the taxpayer and of the House of Commons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it would be more convenient to the House, and more in accordance with whet is usual, if I made a general full statement on the subject, which I am ready and anxious to do.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it a fact that the House of Commons may not have the number of troops in the Middle East for which the taxpayer is paying?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Full information will be made available.

HON. MEMBERS: When?

Mr. CHURCHILL: At the proper time.

PORTSMOUTH COMMAND (BUILDINGS).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the old headquarters house of the Portsmouth command in High Street. has been vacated and at what date; if it has been let, and for what amount; if Government House has been or is being converted into Government offices, and at what cost; why this change has been made; if he can give the contemplated saving over the old arrangement; if new buildings are being erected near Government House for the ordnance department and at Lumps Fort for officers' quarters; and if he can give the pre-War strength of the garrison at Portsmouth and the present. strength?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The old headquarters house in High Street was formally handed over to the Royal Engineers for sale or letting on the 17th instant: it has not yet been disposed of, and until it is, I am unable to state the amount of the saving which will accrue from the new arrangements. The cost of converting Government House offices was £426. No new buildings for the ordnance department are being erected near Government House, nor for officers' quarters at Lumps Fort, but two existing huts at the latter place are being converted with a view to their being let to married officers. The pre-War strength of the garrison of Portsmouth was 2,431, all ranks, and the present strength is 1,487.

Sir B. PALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what buildings are being erected?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have said two existing huts are being converted with a view to them being used as married quarters.

Sir B. FALLE: But is there not a new building being put up?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No new buildings for the Ordnance Department are being erected near Government House.

Sir B. FALLE: Then what is the new building that is being put up there?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down another question, and if there is such a building being put up, I will tell him.

NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will set up a special committee to investigate and report upon the trading of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, with an independent chairman, and with adequate representation of the trading and commercial interests in the country?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think any further inquiry necessary. A Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield reported that they were "convinced that the maintenance of a permanent organisation of the kind is most desirable as a matter of policy, both because of the amenities which it affords to members of the forces, and more particularly because it provides the nucleus of a service capable of immediate expansion on mobilisation."

Mr. MORRISON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many officials are employed in the offices of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes in Fisherton Street, Salisbury; what is the annual cost of their salaries; and how many are ex-service men?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Ten females and 27 males are employed in the office of the Navy, Army, and Air
Force Institutes at Salisbury. As these, institutes are not chargeable to Army Votes I am not in a position to say what is the annual cost of the salaries in question. Of the male employés, 11 are ex-service men, nine were under age during the War, one was unfit, and six were exempted. I am drawing the attention of the board of management of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes to the low proportion of ex-service men employee at Salisbury.

Viscount WOLMER: Is it not a fact that the Board of Management is under the control of the Army Council, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, and are not those Departments responsible for the expenditure incurred by the Board of Management?

Mr. RAWLINSON: On what Vote does this expenditure appear?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not borne on any Vote. No public funds are involved. It is not true to say that the institutes are under the control of the three Departments concerned. Those Departments are represented on the Board of Management, but in no sense do they control the Board. The most I can do is to call the attention of the Board to the very low proportion of ex-service men employed.

Viscount WOLMER: Is it possible for the Board of Management to pursue a policy directly contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the Noble Lord should give me a specific question: then I will tell him.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

WAR OFFICE.

Mr. BRIANT: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to issue any memorandum commenting on the findings of the Geddes Committee?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have no present intention of issuing such a memorandum.

Mr. BRIANT: Is such a memorandum being prepared?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have said I have no present intention of issuing such a memorandum.

Captain BENN: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the findings of the Geddes Committee?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It means exactly what I have said—that I have no present intention of issuing such a memorandum.

HON. MEMBERS: What about future intentions?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As to that we must wait and see.

SALARIES (REDUCTION).

Major GLYN: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the event of a percentage reduction on salaries being agreed upon in the case of certain sections of the community, as suggested in the Report of the Geddes Committee, what would be the approximate saving to the State were a 5 per cent. reduction made universal upon all persons receiving money raised from taxes, as the whole or a portion of their income, including Ministers of the Crown, Members of this House, civil servants, judges, postal and police officers, &c.?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I am not aware that the Geddes Committee have suggested a percentage reduction of the salaries of certain sections of the community. If 5 per cent. of the salaries and wages of all persons receiving money raised from taxes as the whole or a portion of their income were deducted, it would represent something under £10,000,000 per annum on the basis of present numbers.

Lieut.-Colonel.I. WARD: Does that include the pay of the soldier, on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is proposing a 5 per cent. reduction?

Sir R. HORNE: It would include the pay of the soldier.

NAVY ESTIMATES AND MILITARY GARRISONS.

Sir F. HALL: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the issue of their final Report, the Committee on National Expenditure have
asked for information as regards the policy of the Government with respect to the revision of the Navy Estimates, as the result of the Washington Conference, oil stocks and oil storage, and the maintenance of permanent military garrisons abroad; and whether this information has been furnished to the Committee in such a form as to enable them satisfactorily to frame their final recommendations?

Sir R. HORNE: The Committee on National Expenditure has made no communication to the Government except what is contained in their Report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the letter which I read in the House last Thursday.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 74.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is his intention to issue any memorandum commenting on the findings of the Geddes Committee?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): The matter is under my consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect to consider it and when will he be able to announce his intentions?

Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as I am concerned I shall be very glad to do so.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that if my right hon. Friend carries out the regulations of the Select. Committee on Pensions he will save a great deal more money than the Geddes Committee suggested?

Mr. MACPHERSON: That is exactly what I am doing.

IRAQ.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have yet been taken to call a constituent assembly together in Iraq; and what is the Government's present policy on this subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is hoped that a representative assembly will meet in Bagdad very shortly. The electoral law has been completed; elections are now being held for the municipal bodies, whose business it will be to carry out the
provisions of the electoral law in the towns; and it is anticipated that the elections for the assembly itself will be held almost at once.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the franchise given to the voters in the Iraq as liberal as that given to voters of a similar character in Palestine?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like notice of that question.

TANGANYIKA (LAND TENURE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into the system of land tenure desirable in Tanganyika?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 16th December, this question is to be discussed with the Governor on his return to England. The Governor has not yet left Tanganyika, but he will do so shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

FRANCAISE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in connection with the new Palestinian constitution, whether he will give an estimate of the number of persons likely to be enfranchised as primary electors, and the proportion borne by their number to the population of Palestine?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The details of the new electoral system proposed for Palestine are still under discussion, and I cannot give accurate figures at the present stage. The proposal is to enfranchise all male Palestinians of the age of 25 years and over, unless otherwise disqualified. Assuming there to be 300,000 males of all ages in Palestine, it may perhaps be estimated that about half that number would be entitled to a primary vote.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand there is no educational test in this case?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any question of giving the women a vote?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Things must be done gradually in regard to the Holy Land.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any educational test?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I do not think there is for the primary election.

MR. COSTAKI SABA.

Mr. RAPER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Costaki Saba, late public prosecutor in Palestine, has been ordered to leave the country; and why he was refused a written order of deportation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information on the subject, but I am making inquiries.

EMIGRATION.

Mr. RAPER: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what control the proposed Legislative Assembly in Palestine will exercise on emigration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The exact scope of the functions to be exercised by the proposed Legislative Council for Palestine is still a matter of discussion. I should prefer to make no statement on the subject for the present.

Mr. RAPER: May I ask if, at the present time, it is a fact that the majority of the residents in Palestine have no control whatsoever over emigration into their own country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It certainly is the fact, and if the hon. Gentleman had followed the many Debates and discussions on this subject, he would hardly think it necessary to put forward such a query.

SMUGGLED ARMS.

Mr. RAPER: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if Mr. Rosenberg, to whom the arms recently smuggled into Palestine through Haifa were consigned, has been released on £2,500 bail; and what are Mr. Rosenberg's present whereabouts.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I informed the hon. Member last Wednesday, I am awaiting a full Report on the incident from the High Commissioner for Palestine. I have no doubt that this Report will cover the points raised in the question.

Mr. RAPER: Has the Report been received?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know, I will ask.

TREATMENT OF CHILDREN, HONG KONG.

The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS:

30. To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the records of the Colonial Office show that mui tsai of Hong Kong, of quite tender years, are frequently compelled to labour over 12 hours a day, and that cases have been established in the open court where these children have been forced to work up to a' long as 18 and 20 hours in one day.

Mr. EDWARDS: This question is postponed, by request, until a week to-day.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for postponing this question. I wish to have some correspondence with the Governor of Hong Kong on the subject. I am not entirely satisfied with the drift of the questions and answers on the subject.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I am very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

COMPULSORY LABOUR.

Mr. RAFFAN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the amending Ordinance upon compulsory labour in Kenya Colony has yet received his approval; and, if so, whether a copy will be placed upon the Table of the House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not yet received the Ordinance referred to, but am calling the Governor's attention to the matter.

LOAN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Kenya Colony has recently borrowed largely in London on the security of the colonial revenues of that Colony; that it is freely suggested that His Majesty's Government, being responsible for the imposition of taxation in Kenya, is thereby made responsible for the payment of the interest on the loan; and whether he will make it clear that in all such
cases His Majesty's Government will not hold this country responsible for making any grant-in-aid to such Crown Colonies in order to enable the Colony to meet its liabilities?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This question should have been put down to me, and not to the Prime Minister. I was not aware that the suggestion in question had been made. The prospectus of the Kenya Loan, as in all similar cases, contained a definite statement that—
The Revenues of the Colony of Kenya alone are liable in respect of the stock and dividends thereon, and the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury are not directly or indirectly liable or responsible for the payment of the stock or of the dividends thereon, or for any matter relating thereto.
I see no reason for supplementing this explicit statement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then it is clear that, even where the Colonial Office is primarily responsible for taxation levied in the Colony, this country will not be liable to pay the interest on this loan?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have stated what is clearly notified upon the prospectus of the loan. It is very gratifying indeed to see that this small Colony should have been able, on its own resources, to raise a loan on terms which are so favourable to the Colony, and which at the present time stands at a substantial premium.

NATIVE RESERVES, RHODESIA.

Mr. RAFFAN: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the 35,000 Rhodesian natives referred to in White Book (Cmd. 547) have been removed from their reserves; and whether any compensation has been made to them to cover the costs of removal?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not received recent figures of such voluntary removals as may have taken place, but the hon. Member will observe from the despatch published in the White Book of December, 1920 (Cmd. 1042), that no question of compulsory removal could arise until after the 15th of this month. As regards the question of compensation, I would refer to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 27th July last.

WHIST DRIVES, PORTSMOUTH.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the attitude of the Portsmouth police towards whist drives; why should they be banned in Portsmouth and not everywhere else; why the magistrate of the same town will not allow dancing after I a.m. under any circumstances when dances are permitted up to a much later hour on special occasions at hunt balls, etc., all over the country; and will he consider the advisability of initiating legislation to amend and to consolidate the law relating to such harmless recreations with a view to removing such anomalies in administration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave him on 1st November last. My attention has not been drawn to the matters referred to. No doubt any action of the magistrates has been taken in the light of local circumstances. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

HYDE PARK (MISBEHAVIOUR).

Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the police in taking proceedings against certain persons for annoying or insulting behaviour in Hyde Park; whether action has in all cases only been taken on police evidence; whether the police have in any case been able to produce as witnesses any persons who have been so annoyed or insulted; and whether, in view of the fact that nearly all of these cases have been unsuccessful either in court or on appeal, and considering the very grave effect which may be produced upon the career and life of an individual by an unjust or unsubstantiated charge of this nature being made against him, he can assure the House that the best possible use is being made of the police in this connection, and that the greatest possible care is exercised before such charges are made?

Mr. SHORTT: I find that since 1st January, 1921, 318 persons (154 males and 164 females) have been charged by the police with misbehaviour of this kind in Hyde Park. Of these, only seven
(three males and four females) were discharged by the magistrate, and these were, I believe, discharged under the Probation of Offenders Act. In three cases of males the convictions were quashed on appeal. In only seven cases members of the public consented to come forward and give evidence. These figures show how little foundation there is for the insinuation contained in the question. I see no reason whatever to doubt that the police generally use very great discretion in bringing charges of this nature.

Viscount CURZON: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the last part of my question, and can he assure us that the greatest possible care will be exercised before bringing a charge, which may or may not be true, against an individual which is certain to ruin his whole future life and career?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir. I have already said that I am quite satisfied that that is being done, and I think the fact that only seven cases out of 318—and those under the Probation of Offenders Act—were discharged, shows very clearly that the police must have been most careful in bringing charges.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of changing the name to "Hide-and-Seek Park"?

Mr. RAWLINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable that charges of that nature should be brought on the uncorroborated testimony of one policeman, without the evidence of a superior officer or some member of the public?

Mr. SHORTT: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree with me in thinking that we can trust the Courts of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INCOME TAX ARREARS, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. G. BARKER: 36.
asked the Home Secretary, in view of the present acute poverty arising from low wages and unemployment, especially in South Wales and Monmouthshire, if he will take steps to prevent the arrest and imprisonment of workmen who are unable from the foregoing causes to pay their Income Tax arrears?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no power to interfere in the case of persons committed by the Courts to prison for non-payment of Income Tax. I would, however, call the hon. Member's attention to the reply given on the 13th by the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, in which he pointed out that no defaulter can be imprisoned unless it is proved that he has had means in his possession sufficient to enable him to pay the arrears due.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Income Tax, in the case of the casual labourer, is levied on one particular quarter of the year, irrespectively of what he may have earned in the lean quarters, and would he, in the circumstances, be willing to enforce a warrant on a man for one quarter of a year as against the other three quarters?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I must either have notice of that question, or get the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to answer it for me.

Mr. SEXTON: I will put it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

RELIEF WORKS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what balances remain unexpended of the various funds to provide work for the unemployed; and what further financial provision the Government intend making so as to ensure a continuation of public works by local authorities during the next six months?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I understand that the hon. Member is interested in allocation rather than expenditure. Of the £2,540,000 set aside for land improvement and drainage, forestry, roads and light railways, I am informed that £1,313,500 has been provisionally allocated. In addition, the whole of the £2,000,000 for arterial roads and other road works has been allocated. The whole of the £2,630,000 set aside for the scheme administered by the Unemployment Grants Committee whereby the State bears 60 per cent. of the wages bill of works defrayed by local authorities out of revenue has been allocated.
As regards the second part of the question, works under the schemes I have
mentioned will be in operation for some time. Furthermore the Government has decided that the Unemployment Grants Committee may approve schemes up to a total capital value of £18,000,000, an increase of £8,000,000 on the original pro, vision in respect of schemes for which the State assumes a share of the loan charges. Under this head £13,500,000 has already been allocated.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the hon. Member say whether the increased capital sum is immediately available so that schemes held up by local authorities may be proceeded with at once?

Mr. YOUNG: It will be available in such a manner that the administration of these schemes, and their approval, may be continuous.

CASUAL LABOURERS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 92.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the deep-rooted discontent in the minds of a very large number of casual labourers in all parts of the country on account of the waiting period before they can receive their unemployment pay; if he is aware that great hardships occur to the building trade workers and other workmen on account of their employment being casual and subject to weather conditions, seldom being able to claim benefit, only being at work one or two days, which are not consecutive; and it he will take action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The rules with regard to the waiting period are laid down by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and I have no power to alter them. I am aware that in certain cases they reduce considerably the amount of benefit payable where unemployment is not consecutive, but as the workmen in such cases are obviously not wholly unemployed, and as the resources of the Unemployment Fund are already very severely strained, I cannot recommend any alteration in these rules.

PETITION FOR RELEASE (F. BENTON).

Major C. LOWTHER: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Benton,
now serving a sentence of imprisonment; whether he has received a petition for the man's release on the grounds that evidence in another case established Benton's innocence; and whether he will request the Chief Commissioner to hold an inquiry as to the conduct of the police in the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: My attention has been called to this case. In view of the acquittal of Benton's companion, Dearman, at Quarter Sessions, I have recommended the remission of Benton's sentence, and he has been released. The facts which have come to my notice give no ground for suggesting that the police were guilty of any misconduct.

Major LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of awarding some compensation to this innocent man, who was imprisoned for a certain time?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir. He was found guilty by the Court, and I have done the most that I can.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (DUPLICATION).

Major C. LOWTHER: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the learned judge on Saturday, when charging the grand jury at Hereford, as to the unnecessary duplication of proceedings in coroners' and magistrates' courts in certain cases; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to give effect to the learned judge's recommendations?

Mr. SHORTT: The suggested amendment in the law will be considered in connection with a Bill which is now being drafted.

Major LOWTHER: When may we expect the Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I cannot give the assurance asked for.

MORMON PROPAGANDA.

Viscount CURZON: 40
asked the Home Secretary whether he has completed his investigations into the activities, etc.,
of the Mormon missionaries in this country; and whether he is yet in a position to make any statement?

Mr. SHORTT: Inquiries are still proceeding, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

POLICE EVIDENCE (O. G. WYATT).

Major C. LOWTHER: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the Chairman of the London Sessions on 15th February, when allowing the appeal of Oliver Gwynne Wyatt, as to the evidence given by two police officers; and whether, in view of the fact that it is essential in the interests of justice for police evidence to be given with the most scrupulous accuracy and fairness, he will ask the Chief Commissioner of Police to hold an inquiry?

Mr. SHORTT: The case is now under the Commissioner's consideration.

TAXICABS.

Major GLYN: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in consultation with the Metropolitan Police authorities, he will consider in what way a better class of motor taxi-cab hackney carriages can be encouraged to ply for hire by allowing a lower legal minimum scale of fares to be charged by cabs over a certain age, and of only a limited horse power; and whether, since such a system operates with success in Paris and elsewhere, and since the cost of petrol, oils, etc., has fallen, he can take steps to prevent a vehicle using small quantities of spirit and proceeding at slower speeds having the advantage of superior vehicles?

Mr. SHORTT: The question is under consideration, and I am making inquiries as to the operation of this system in some foreign capitals.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Mr. KILEY: 43.
asked the Home Secretary the number of applications for naturalisation which have been in his Department for more than 12 months:
and is he prepared to consider the advisability of increasing the staff in order to deal forthwith with cases where the applicants are heads of families, clergymen, or doctors, where it is shown that they have been in this country for 20 years or more and are of good repute?

Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the figures contained in my reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) on the 13th instant. I do not feel justified, in existing circumstances, in increasing the staff of my Department for the purpose of dealing with this work.

Mr. KILEY: Is there any special reason why people who have lived in this country for 20 years cannot have their applications considered?

Mr. SHORTT: They are being considered as rapidly as possible with the limited staff at our disposal.

Mr. KILEY: Do not these people pay a large sum of money for their naturalisation, which more than covers the expense, and could not a staff be engaged?

Mr. SHORTT: It does not cover the expense at all.

POLICE WOMEN.

Mr. MALONE: 44.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of his statement made in the House on 25th October concerning the great value of police women, he can give an assurance that he will oppose the recommendations of the Geddes Committee to abolish the Metropolitan women patrols?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I cannot give the assurance asked for.

Mr. MALONE: Are not these women patrols of great value in protecting the young?

Mr. SHORTT: That is not the question on the Paper.

MATCHES (TAX).

Mr. DOYLE: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the tax on matches is being largely used by dealers as a desire to further profiteering; and whether, in preparing
the Estimates for the forthcoming Budget, he will so arrange the incidence of the tax as to give the Exchequer the benefit of any added charges?

Sir R. HORNE: I have no information in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.

CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (DEVELOPMENT).

Major GLYN: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since all questions concerning the development of Crown Colonies and Protectorates by private enterprise are passed, on the advice of the Colonial Office, to the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee for consideration, by whom is the final approval for such schemes given, and how far is the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee, already overburdened with trade questions concerning foreign countries, able to consider these colonial schemes which are often matters of urgency and supported by the Crown agents and local governments concerned; and whether it, is possible to set up, without expense to the taxpayer, an advisory committee which will include representations of the Dominions, as well as the Crown agents, with independent financial and commercial advisers?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension. The Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act is concerned only with applications for guarantees under that Act. It is in no way concerned with development schemes in general whether in the Colonies or elsewhere. The Committee has nine applications before it relating to Dominion or Colonial matters, and I am aware of no reason why they should not be dealt with in the usual way. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Major GLYN: Is it not possible for a special Committee to be set up by the Treasury in order to hasten these returns?

Sir R. HORNE: That certainly does not lie with me.

EXCESS PROFITS DITTY AND WAR ASSETS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been
realised to the latest available date of the £120,000,000 estimated for Excess Profits Duty and £158,500,000 estimated for war assets in the financial statement for 1921–22?

Sir R. HORNE: Down to the 18th February the Exchequer receipts, as stated in the published weekly Returns, were for Excess Profits Duty £29,714,000, and for Special Miscellaneous Revenue £127,233,314.

WAR LOANS (INTEREST).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in 1844 the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the rate of interest of Consols from 3½1 per cent. to 3 per cent.; that in 1888 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goschen, reduced the rate of interest from 3 per cent to 2¾4 per cent., and later to 2½1 per cent.; that Mr. Goschen's reduction effected a saving of £1,400,000 in the first year and £2,800,000 in later years; whether, in view of the fact that the bank rate has now fallen to 4½ per cent., he is prepared to adopt those predecents, and reduce the rate of interest by a rate equal to the fall in the bank rate; and, if not, whether he is prepared to consider a reduction by a smaller amount?

Sir R. HORNE: The operations to which the hon. Member refers were conversion operations, the essence of which was that holders of the outstanding Government Stocks were offered payment in cash at par as an alternative to conversion of their holdings into the new stocks. At the present moment such an operation, even if monetary conditions permitted, is not possible in the case of any of the larger issues of War Loans for the reason that it is part of the contract between the Government and the subscriber that the loans shall not be paid off before a fixed date. For example, the 5 per cent. War Loan cannot be paid off (except by purchase at the market price) before 1929.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that the Government can borrow money from the banks at 3½ per cent. or 4½2 per cent. and pay off at par the money on which they are paying 5 per cent. to the present holders of capital?

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member is under a mistake. We can only borrow at the rate he mentions at short notice. You could not pay off long term debt with money borrowed at short notice.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is it snot a fact that the Government had the benefit of loans at 5 per cent. while the bank rate was at 7 per cent.?

GERMAN REPARATION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the estimate of the total amount in sterling or gold marks which this country will have received from Germany by way of reparation at the close of the current financial year?

Sir R. HORNE: The amount received by the British Empire from Germany by the close of the current financial year will probably be insufficient to cover the cost of the British Army of Occupation. Nothing will accordingly have been received on account of reparation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that taking into account payments we have made to Germany for extra food for miners and that sort of thing, and if not does not that show an actual loss?

Sir R. HORNE: I am leaving out of account entirely what we have paid to Germany in connection with food supply of the miners.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then there is an actual loss shown so far?

Sir R. HORNE: Certainly, because the Army of Occupation has not yet been paid for.

Colonel NEWMAN: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the question of the amount which Germany shall be required to pay by way of reparation to this and other countries has been and is still under discussion; and can he say whether those who are engaged in the discussion are likely to come to an early decision?

Sir R. HORNE: The total reparation liability of Germany was fixed by the Reparation Commission in May, 1921. As regards the amount payable in 1922 the answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

SUGAR BEET (EXCISE DUTY).

Mr. G. EDWARDS: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in consequence of the abnormal losses of the last two seasons, the continuance of the two experimental sugar-beet factories is threatened unless some relief is given immediately in the form of Excise rebate; and whether, in view of the opinion that the development of the sugar-beet industry in this country would be of benefit and would bring prosperity to the industry of agriculture, he will consider, in connection with the forthcoming Budget, the possibility of agreeing to the petition presented to the Government for the removal or reduction of the Excise Duty on Home-grown sugar?

Sir R. HORNE: The present position of the sugar-beet industry in this country is now being carefully considered. Meantime, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Does the right hon Gentleman realise the urgency of this question, and in view of the fact that representatives of the Labour party as well as other quarters of the House feel that this matter is very serious can he take an immediate decision on the subject?

Sir R. HORNE: The Budget is also a very urgent question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: 59.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the total yearly cost of the Scottish Education Department in London and in Edinburgh, including all officials that are under its direct control?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I would refer my hon. Friend to the detailed information given in Subheads A, B, G, and H of the Estimate for Publication Education (Scotland), and in Subheads A and B of the Estimate for Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Scotland) for the current financial year

STEAMER FREIGHTS.

Mr. H. MORRISON: 62.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is
aware of the handicap to agriculture in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland owing to the high steamer freights; and whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the whole question?

Mr. MUNRO: I am aware that the steamer freights referred to have risen considerably in recent years, and that the increase in the cost of exporting live stock and of importing seed, fertilisers, and other materials must necessarily react adversely on agriculture in the districts concerned. Increases in transport charges due to the prevailing economic conditions are of general occurrence at the present time, and on the facts before me I do not see that inquiry by a committee could serve any useful purpose

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that in most cases the increase has been from 300 per cent. to 500 per cent. and costs have gone down enormously in the last few months?

Mr. MUNRO: I am not able do give the precise figures without notice.

SMALLHOLDERS.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 63.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many smallholders were settled by the Scottish Board of Agriculture in the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, respectively, and also during any period of this year for which figures are available; and how many applicants for holdings remain unsatisfied?

Mr. MUNRO: The numbers of applicants settled by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, were 396, 317, and 722 respectively. No figures are as yet available in respect of the current year. The number of applications outstanding at present is 11,463, comprising 6,857 for new holdings and 4,006 for enlargements.

Major WOOD: Did nor my right hon. Friend say he expected to settle 950 last year when speaking on the Scottish Estimates? What has prevented his expectations being realised?

Mr. MUNRO: Frankly, I do not remember the precise figure I used. If my hon. Friend will put down a question I will deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEGRAPH WIRES (NEW ROMNEY).

Mr. J. DAVISON: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to lay telegraph and telephone wires from New Romney Post Office to St. Mary's, a distance of about 2½ smiles, for private use only; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the public will have to bear the expense, he will consider the possibility of establishing an office in St. Mary's for the use of the general public?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): A two-party telephone exchange line is being provided on rental terms from the New Romney Exchange to premises at St. Mary's. There is no post office at St. Mary's, but I will ascertain whether arrangements can be made for a call office on private premises. A separate pair of wires would be necessary for a call office, and a guarantee would probably be required.

DISMISSALS (GIRLS).

Mr. J. DAVISON: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, contrary to the recommendations of the Lytton Committee, a lady with private means is being retained in the Money Order Department, Postal Order Branch, while many girls entirely dependent on their earnings, equally efficient and with several years' service, are being dismissed; and why the single girls under notice in this and the Savings Bank Department have not been allowed to have their appeals heard by their substitution committee?

69. A question in similar terms was addressed by Mr. MILLS to the Postmaster-General.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Members.

WIRELESS STATIONS (LEAFIELD AND CAIRO).

Mr. HURD: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the Leafield and Cairo wireless stations, work on which was begun in the autumn of 1919, are now conducting a service; what has been the public expenditure upon these stations; what is the latest estimated expenditure for the completed imperial chain of stations; and does this estimate provide for the use of patents?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Experimental transmission has been commenced between the Leafield and Cairo wireless stations, and as soon as the preliminary trials are completed a public service will be inaugurated. The Leafield station has been working satisfactorily for some months and its messages are regularly picked up practically all the way by liners on the Australian route, except when receiving conditions are abnormally bad. The total cost of the two stations is estimated at £250,000. The cost of the remaining five stations of the Imperial Chain, for which the Imperial Government will be responsible, is estimated in the recently published Report of the Wireless Telegraphy Commission at £853,000. This estimate does not provide for any liability which might be incurred in respect of royalties for the use of patents.

Mr. HURD: Is it possible to make any estimate as to the addition which will have to be made to that?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No estimate can be made. The question is now under negotiation with the companies whether any liability at all will be involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

HOSPITAL ORDERLIES

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 70.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many orderlies are employed in Ministry hospitals; and whether there is one orderly for every six patients?

Mr. MACPHERSON: There are 1,879 orderlies employed in Ministry hospitals and convalescent centres where there are 13,644 in-patients; but less than 50 per cent. of these are employed on nursing duties or in the wards. The remainder of the orderlies so termed are merely employés engaged on general domestic duties, e.g., as messengers, sanitary men, store-men, gatemen, dining-room orderlies, gardeners, and ambulance drivers, and in the out-patient departments, where 17,861 patients are being treated.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we to understand that no reduction is proposed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am trying to reduce as many as I can.

Lieut.-Colonel.J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that in any proposed reductions he does not make the life of these poor inmates worse than it is to-day?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope the House will believe that I am very careful about that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman bearing that point in view in closing down the Shepherds Bush Orthopædic Hospital?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

BORDER REGIMENT (WILLIAM DIXON).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 71.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of the late William Dixon, No. 7/19922, Border Regiment; whether he is aware that this man deserted his wife and two children in 1913, and that the children have since then been maintained by the Guardians of the Lanchester union, the mother having been sent to an asylum; that Dixon was killed in France in 1916; that the guardians first learned in 1920 that he had joined the Army; whether application has been made to the Ministry of Pensions by the guardians for the repayment of the cost of maintenance of the children; and whether the Ministry have granted this as from July, 1919, but refused to pay the three years previous to that date, namely, from the date of the soldier's death?

Mr. SWAN: 72.
asked the Minister of Pensions why the liability for the maintenance of the children of the late Private W. Dixon, No. 7/19922, Border Regiment., should have had to be a liability on the Lanchester Poor Law Guardians; if he is aware that for three years' keep by the ratepayers nothing has been allowed; and will he inquire into this case?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The late soldier enlisted as a single man, having deserted his wife and children in 1913. The wife died subsequently, and the children became chargeable to the Poor Law. The soldier was presumed dead in July, 1916, and an application for pension on behalf of the children was made in June, 1920. The application was successful, and arrears of pension were awarded for a year, which is the maximum period admissible.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the guardians are charged with an expense which properly falls on the State—pensions for the orphans of soldiers?

Mr. MACPHERSON: That is perfectly true, but under Article 7 of the Pay Warrant I am precluded from paying arrears for more than a year.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider having that altered so as to do justice to the local ratepayers?

Mr. SWAN: As the Poor Law authorities did not know they must claim before the 21st, it was impossible to claim before then, and, in the light of the great burdens entailing almost bankruptcy upon all who have to pay, cannot he give further consideration and assist the guardians in this maintenance?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into it.

EAST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (EX-SERGEANT C. JOHNSON).

Mr. SWAN: 73.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the 20 per cent. pension to ex-Sergeant Charles Johnson, 2nd Battalion East Yorkshire Regiment, is not being paid to him after being granted at Durham City Medical Board on 8th April, 1921; that he is still suffering from the effects of his military service; that he has a large family and an ailing wife dependent upon him; and will he have inquiries made into the case?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The disability in this case was only accepted as having been aggravated by service, and as the Pensions Appeal Tribunal have confirmed, and thus made final, the decision of the Ministry that aggravation has passed away, I regret that the case cannot be re-opened.

Mr. SWAN: Is it not a fact that this man never suffered a lay's ill-health before he went into the Army, but since he has returned he cannot earn his maintenance and his family is handicapped?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have pointed out already that this man has appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, over which I have no power of control. Their judgment is final.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has arrived
when it is possible to reduce the number of medical officers on these medical boards?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question. It does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S DEPARTMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many non-service men and how many women are employed in the office of the Public Trustee's Department in a temporary capacity; and what steps he is taking to secure that the posts held by such personnel shall be filled by ex-service men who have been discharged from Government Departments and are now awaiting re-allocation?

Mr. H. YOUNG: There are 27 non-service men, of whom 10 are under notice, and 208 women employed in a temporary capacity in the Public Trustee's Department, including the Trading with the Enemy Department. Of the women, 168 are not substitutable by ex-service men, and of the remainder 16 are under notice of dismissal. The whole of the temporary non-service personnel is periodically under review by the Departmental substitution committee, and further substitution by ex-service men is proceeding as rapidly as the exigencies of the work permit.

Sir F. HALL: How is it that it is not possible to substitute ex-service men for these women?

Mr. YOUNG: These are women who are doing work which is not suitable for men—charwomen and certain classes of typists.

Captain COOTE: Why is the Trading with the Enemy Department retained, seeing that there is now no enemy?

Mr. YOUNG: There is a good deal of work to be cleared up.

STATIONERY OFFICE.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many non-service men and how many women are employed in the Stationery Office Department in a tem-
porary capacity; and what steps he is taking to secure that the posts held by such personnel shall be filled by ex-service men who have been discharged from Government Departments and are now awaiting re-allocation?

Mr. YOUNG: Excluding industrial staff, there are 59 non-service men, of whom 19 are under notice of discharge, and 323 women, of whom 6 are under notice of discharge, employed in a temporary capacity in the Stationery Office. Thirty-one of the non-service men are employed upon technical duties and are gradually being replaced by permanent officers or discharged on reduction of staff; of the women, 300 are not replaceable by ex-service men, being mainly typists, duplicating machine operators and charwomen. The position of the remaining non-service personnel is periodically under review by the Departmental Substitution Committee, and further substitution is being effected as the exigencies of the work permit.

Sir F. HALL: Considering that there is such a large number of ex-service men out of employment, cannot they be used for the purpose of typewriting?

Mr. YOUNG: Every opportunity is taken to find employment of that sort. I recently arranged, in connection with such questions as those raised by the hon. Member, for a monthly conference between the Joint Substitution Board and the representatives of the organisations of ex-service men and of women, and I find that this arrangement is working very smoothly in order to overcome difficulties and questions of this sort.

Sir F. HALL: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give other hon. Members a chance.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 91.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of disabled ex-service men trained in various trades under schemes for training such men; how many have been able to secure employment after completion of training; and how many have been unable to secure employment through incapacity arising out of War service, although their training is completed?

Sir M. BARLOW: The total number of disabled ex-service men who had completed training under the Industrial Training Scheme was 49,000 on 14th February, 1922, and 23,309 men were in training on that date. In addition about 11,000 men were trained by the Ministry of Pensions prior to 1st August, 1919. Training has been given in more than 500 trades and occupations. Exact information is not available as to the number of men who on completion of training have obtained employment in the trades for which they were trained, but no man is trained for a trade for which his physical disability renders him unsuitable.

LIFE ANNUITIES.

Earl WINTERTON: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the profit or loss arising from the sale of life annuities through the National Debt Commissioners and the Post Office Savings Bank for the financial years 1919, 1920, and 1921, respectively?

Mr. YOUNG: The gain or loss to the Government on life annuities is only reflected in any variation in the actual mortality experience of the lives involved as compared with the mortality basis of the tables on which the annuities are granted. It is not possible to give figures of profit or loss for individual years. Periodic investigations are made into the mortality experienced amongst the annuitants, and the tables are revised in conformity with the results disclosed. The results of the last investigation were published in 1912 (Cmd. 298–1912), and a further investigation is at present proceeding, the results of which will be reported to Parliament in due course.

Earl WINTERTON: Can my hon. Friend inform me whether it is possible to find anywhere any account, profit or loss, for a period of years of this important portion of Government finance, and, if not, will he take an early opportunity of publishing a Paper on the subject, in view of the fact that large sums of money are involved?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer is really contained in what I have said, that the only manner in which to arrive at whether profit or loss is being made, is to review a period of years after seeing whether
the mortality experience during these years has been in favour of the State or of the annuitants. Such a review is contained in the Paper to which I referred, and such review will be contained in the subsequent Return on the same subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

CHEMICALS.

Mr. MYERS: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a parcel containing chemicals for research work was despatched from Berlin on 17th December addressed to Mr. Garfield Thomas, University of Manchester, which arrived at Grimsby on 24th December; that he was informed by the Customs three weeks later that the goods had arrived and that the duty on, the same would be 28 per cent. ad valorem, duty and another 33⅓ on, which was immediately paid; and whether, in view of the fact that these goods were on 9th February still retained by the Customs despite the duty having been paid, he will have inquiries made as to the reason they have not been released?

Mr. YOUNG: I am informed that the post parcel in question was, sent forward to the addressee on the 11th instant. The delay in this case is regretted.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great many cases of delay which are causing a great deal of discontent, and will he see that they are put right immediately?

Mr. YOUNG: I can only speak for delay in so far as it is caused, or alleged to have been caused, by the Customs. I have investigated many cases of this sort, but in many cases I have found that the delay is not attributable to the Customs. In some few cases, such as this, there has, no doubt, been delay; but I am strongly of the impression, from the cases I have investigated, that the allegation that there is general delay for which the Customs are responsible is not substantiated by the facts.

DRAWING SETS.

Mr. KILEY: 80.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a duty of 33⅓ per cent.
is being imposed on boys' drawing sets costing 5s. on the grounds that they are scientific instruments; can he say what principle is adopted in deciding whether an article is scientific, and can he give instructions that articles which are intended for the use of children shall be excluded from this tariff?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): Mathematical drawing instruments, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, are one of the recognised classes of scientific instruments, and are accordingly liable to duty. I may add that, as has repeatedly been stated in this House the Board of Trade have no power to except from the operation of the Safeguarding of Industries Act any articles comprised within the general headings of the Schedule to the Act.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What use will these articles be in the next war?

SPECTACLES.

Mr. KILEY: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why duty is collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act on some kinds of spectacles and not on others; if this is on the ground of difference in magnification, does he work on some standard of definition; and, if so, will he state for the information of those concerned what standard it is?

Sir W. MITCH ELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is that all spectacles fitted with lenses are liable to duty in respect of the lenses, and I am not aware of any cases in which duty has not been collected accordingly. The remainder of the question consequently does not arise.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. CAIRNS: 84 and 85.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the difference in price of pit timber, iron rails, wagons, tubs, and pulleys, and the general plant connected with the proper working of coal mines in Great Britain and Ireland at the present date and in June, 1914, respectively; what is the price now of pit oils, grease, and tallow, and in June, 1914,
respectively;; and the increase in the cost of a ton of coal between these two dates;
(2) what the royalty, rents, and way-leaves were in 1914 and now in the County of Northumberland; what were the ships' freights in June, 1914, and now; and what were the railway carriage rates in 1914 and now; and can he give the total royalties, wayleaves, carriage, and freights paid for the year 1921 in each district and for the country?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I will answer this and the following question together. I regret that the latest figures available on this subject are for the quarter ended the 31st March, 1921, and these, of course, are little guide to the present position. I hope very shortly to have the figures for the quarter ended the 30th September, 1921, and if the hon. Member will then repeat his questions, I will do my best to give him the information that he wants, though it will not be possible for me to go into the items of cost in the detail that he suggests.

Mr. CAIRNS: When may I put the question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope to have the figures in a week or ten days. There has been some delay, and I am sorry about it.

Mr. CAIRNS: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to both questions?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot reply in detail as the hon. Member requires.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is the hon. Member aware that these questions affect all the miners of the country?

HOUSING SUBSIDY.

Mr. HANCOCK: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has been urged by housing committees to extend until 1924 the period during which the subsidy for new houses will be given to local authorities, thereby placing England and Wales on the same terms as those applying to Scotland; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Exeter.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

AUXILIARY POLICE (DEBTS).

Mr. J. JONES: 94.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information as to the payment or nonpayment of debts incurred by the auxiliary division of the Royal Irish Constabulary with tradesmen in Ireland; whether he can state the exact amount appealed for by the commandant to the companies of the division in order that local tradesmen might be paid;; and whether, seeing that the companies were given to understand that future employment under the Government was dependent on these debts being discharged, and as a result companies and individuals who were not in debt have had to find money and suffer for other companies and individuals who were, he will inquire into the matter?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I understand that considerable sums were owing by various auxiliary companies in respect of mess supplies, and, as no individuals still serving with the division could be held directly responsible for these debts, the Commandant appealed for subscriptions to clear them off. There was a ready response, and the amount forthcoming represented subscriptions of about 25s. per member. The matter was a domestic one, as cadets paid their own messing expenses and managed their messes themselves, but I am satisfied that contributions were purely voluntary.

Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair that men who did not go into debt themselves, or levy a tribute upon the shopkeepers and tradesmen, should be compelled to pay the debts of other people who did?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I accept neither the preliminary premises nor the conclusions of the hon. Member.

MURDERS, DUBLIN.

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to how it was that Lieutenant Meade, R.A.S.C., and Quarter Master Sergeant Connolly were shot dead near Dublin yesterday; whether the officer and sergeant were armed; whether he had had any communication from the Irish Provisional Government
on the matter; and whether any steps are likely to be taken to apprehend the murderers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The information which I have received regarding this outrage shows that some persons had laid an ambush on the road between Inchicore and Baldonnell, apparaently for the purpose of attacking any military cars which might pass, and that it was by these persons that Lieut. Meade and Quarter-Master Sergeant Connolly were murdered. I do not know whether the officer and sergeant were armed. Detachments of the forces of the Provisional Government and of the military forces of the Crown at once proceeded to the spot, and I am awaiting further reports as to the result of their investigations. I am assured that the Provisional Government is taking all steps in its power to apprehend and bring to justice the perpetrators of this treacherous crime.
I may add that the British military forces have for some time past been ordered to take precautions, and to fire without hesitation if assailed; and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is giving further directions in this sense.

Viscount CURZON: If a military officer or a soldier fires in self-defence, will that be accounted a breach of the truce and will he be held liable for assassination?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, if he fires in self-defence, he will not have committed a breach of the truce.

Sir F. BANBURY: In view of the fact that there have been so many breaches of the truce since 6th December, how much longer are these breaches going to be allowed to take place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I road out yesterday that the number of attacks on police since 6th December was 82, and upon military 34, but I think it only shows that we must persevere steadily in our policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Until all our soldiers are murdered!"]

Viscount CURZON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give us with regard to Lieutenant Genochio, who was murdered?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I have no information. I am pressing the Pro-
visional Government to get, as early as possible, the fullest information on the subject, and it will be laid before the House as it arrives.

IMPORTED CATTLE (SLAUGHTER).

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries whether he has issued an Order amending the Foreign Animals Order of 1910 by extending the time for the slaughter of imported cattle from 10 to 20 days; whether he is aware that owing to the limited accommodation at the ports for housing such cattle this extension of time will act as a further restriction instead of facilitating the importation of Canadian cattle for slaughter; and, whether he will consider the immediate rescinding of this Order so as to maintain the food supplies of the industrial areas?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The extension of time was necessitated by a strike of slaughtermen at Birkenhead which rendered it impossible to secure the slaughter of the cattle at that port. I understand that the strike is now settled and I shall be prepared to rescind the amending Order in question as soon as the cattle at present at, the ports have been disposed of.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

CHARLES GEORGE AMMON, Esquire, for Borough of Camberwell (North Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (The Leader of the House): I beg to move,
That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

This is purely formal.

Question put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eleven Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Six Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Mr. Hodge, Sir Halford Mac-kinder, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Sir William Pearce, Sir Samuel Roberts, Mr. Rendall, Sir Watson Rutherford, Mr. James Henry Thomas, Mr. Turton, and Mr. John William Wilson.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL (APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS UNDER PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That, in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. John William Wilson and Mr. Turton from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.

UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES (PANEL).

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order No. 109; Commander Bellairs, Mr. France, Mr. Hayward, Mr. John Parkinson, Colonel Pinkham, Colonel Sir Alan Sykes, Mr. Thomas-Stanford, and Mr. George Thorne.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private. Legisla-
Hon Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Twenty-five Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Mr. Adamson, Major Birchall, Mr. James Brown, Colonel Buchanan, Sir Henry Craik, Captain Elliot, Major Farquharson, Mr. Ford, Major Glyn, Sir Park Goff, Mr. William Graham, Sir Harry Hope, Colonel Sir John Hope, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Sir Halford Mackinder, Mr. Macleod, Major McMicking, Dr. Murray, Colonel Arthur Murray, Major Steel, Mr Sturrock, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Captain Watson, and Major Mackenzie Wood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [15TH FEBRUARY].

Resolution reported.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS VI.

"That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £455,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate, and Additional Allowances, and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities, and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."

Resolution read a Second time.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I beg to move to leave out "£455,000" and to insert instead thereof "£454,900."
I wish to raise more particularly the question of the pensions included in the Vote which has just been laid before the House. The Vote is a very substantial one. It asks for a further sum of £455,000 beyond the amount originally estimated for, and if hon. Members will look at the bottom of page 35 of the very handy volume in which these Supplementary Estimates are now presented, they will find there the real reason for it. This expenditure is due to additional retirements. I wish to remind the House very briefly of the basis of this Supplementary Estimate, without going into the question of policy involved in the original grant. The House may remember in 1920 the Whitley Council in regard to the war bonus of civil servants. The amount which was originally estimated for—over £9,000,000—was not discussed in Committee or on the Report stage at all, but fell under what is popularly known as the guillotine. In addition to that sum of £9,000,000 a further Estimate by way of Supplementary Estimate had to be submitted, making a total amount of somewhere about £12,000,000. There are one or two hon. Members present who joined in a discussion in the early hours of the morning on the question which was then raised. After all the notice which has been given
with regard to it—even so late as it was at night or so early in the morning when the matter was discussed—I should have thought the Government would for this year have been able to calculate with much greater accuracy the number of retirements which were likely to take place. They estimated for £275,000, but the revised Estimate shows that no less a sum is required than £635,000. So that over £300,000, a larger sum than the original total, is the additional sum required to meet the cost of additional allowances and gratuities to established officers. Why is this great rush going on? Probably there are two reasons, but I should like to know more particularly when the Financial Secretary comes to reply. Probably one reason is that the Treasury has been able to make some reduction in the numbers of the staffs, but a second reason may be the additional attraction to civil servants to retire by reason of the fact that their war bonus is calculated in the pensions to which they are entitled.
4.0 P.M.
The Statute itself is 9 Edward VII., Chap. 10, Sub-section (2) of Section 1. After settling, in the first Sub-section, the proportion, instead of dealing with 1/60th, as it used to be, is now 1/80th. It went on to say that the Treasury "may grant." The first part of the Section is mandatory, the second part is at the disposal of the Treasury. They
may grant by way of additional allowance to any such civil servant who retires after having served not less than two years—
in addition to the superannuation allowance, a lump sum equal to 1/30th of the annual salary and emoluments of his office. On that word "emoluments" the Treasury have in the exercise of their discretion, brought in a war bonus. It is not for me to enter on arguments, even if I were qualified to do so, but the "better opinion," as we say in the law, appears to be that war bonus should be strictly read as an emolument. However that may be, I can only express my surprise at it. I should have thought that a war bonus was not exactly a windfall in a particular year, but one of those purely temporary payments which would run off in the salary and might quite naturally, I should have thought, be also permitted to run off in the pension. I should have thought that that would be
accepted, setting apart the legal interpretation, by the ordinary person as an act of fairness and justice.
When I spoke last, I made a miscalculation, which I desire at once to put right. On the first occasion when this was raised by me, in the first Amendment to the Address, I had the figures correctly. I said that taking a man with a salary of £800, allowing for half of it.—£400—and then the 75 per cent. of the bonus—adding those two together, you will get a pension of about £616. That was correct, but I was incorrect when I spoke last time. By taking figures, not as they should have been, not adding the 75 per cent. of the bonus plus the half of the £800 and then dividing that total to get the pension, I added on the full 75 per cent. of the bonus to the half of the salary, and got the sum of round about £800 when it should have been £616. To the extent that I misled the Committee on that point, I regret it and apologise for it. But it does not affect the principle on which I have been making my criticism of the action of the Treasury in this respect, and what I would urge upon the Financial Secretary and the Government is that they are doing an injustice to the taxpayer of the country at a time when the whole bent of our ideas are towards economy, but not economy with injustice. I suggest, indeed I put it rather stronger, I claim that it is not an injustice to the civil servant that the emoluments, including the permanent part of their pension, should in future run off as the cost of living declines. I do not press it more than that. I should be very much surprised if the Financial Secretary, when he comes to reply, will be able to displace the terms of that statement which I have just laid before the House. No one can blame the civil servants for their desire to retire under these very favourable circumstances. They have been given by the State these exceptionally favourable conditions, of which, by way of illustration, I have taken one as an example. But our duty in this House and in this Committee, is rather a different one. It is to see that, consistent with justice, every measure of economy should be ruthlessly taken. How, on that basis, can the Financial Secretary justify the Estimate which he has laid before us. There is not the slightest doubt that if this process
goes on, before the calendar year is out there will be another Supplementary Estimate, if the Financial Secretary does not calculate on evidence which is afforded him by this Estimate of the very widespread and natural and justifiable desire of the members of the Civil Service to take advantage of existing conditions.
What I press upon the Financial Secretary and the Government is that they should take advantage of their power in the Statute and review the whole situation. In regard to this Estimate, I suppose we can do nothing because the money has already been spent or the Treasury has been already fully committed to it. But what is he going to do for the future? No one can really be damnified if proper and adequate notice is given to them. That is the real reason why I move, in this Vote to-day, that the whole of the Civil Service should be fairly affected by notice of what is, I believe, the view of the House as a whole in regard to this particular incident, and for the future civil servant s should, under the power given to the Treasury, be brought within the scope of the power to review that part of their pensions now granted to them which is allocated to the war pensions. I do not deny—everyone candidly acknowledges—the great zeal and untiring ability which the civil servants show in the discharge of their duties; but I am sure that they would not claim for themselves that they should be specially exempt from the hardships which fall upon the community as a whole. All, that we ask is that they should be as fairly a possible put upon a level in bearing the burdens of the State and of the arduous times through which the whole community has to pass in accordance with the best form of service under the best kind of employer.
I do not think that, if you take the whole range of employment in this country, outside the Civil Service, you would find such a position as this. Compare the great services of the State which are not what we call nationalised. Take the railway servants, or any other of the great fundamental services of the community. One of the main factors in the agreement with the railway servants was that their wages should fall or rise with the cost of living, and the argument which was adduced to the Committee the other day, that it is not possible to make a review of these salaries of the civil
servants—was that it could not be done without costing more than the economy that would be effected, because of the complicated nature of the calculations which would be incurred thereby. I do not know what is the difference between calculating what is due to a railway servant and what is due to a civil servant. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme of calculating a matter of that kind, which would result in a net economy to the State. But I am sure that that argument cannot bear the weight which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary desires to put on it. I conclude by stating once again that the position which I have laid down to-day is one which commends itself to the ordinary sense of fairness and of justice. It is no attack on the Civil Service as a whole or to the civil servants in particular, but simply a desire to see that justice is done and that economy is effected.

Sir F. BANBURY: There are two or three questions which arise on this Vote. First of all I would like to call attention to the Supplementary Estimate for the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1922, to pay superannuation and compassionate and additional allowances and gratuities under sundry Statutes. Beading that without knowing the facts of the case, the House would come to the conclusion that they were compelled by "sundry Statutes" to do what they are asked to do, whereas, as a matter of fact, they are not compelled to do anything of the kind. I do not for a moment suggest that the wording was deliberately put in; but I do ask the Financial Secretary whether he will see that, in the future, where the power of the Treasury is permissive, attention is drawn to that in the Estimates. That, I think, is a very reasonable request, and one which is absolutely necessary if the House or the Committee is to have the power of control over the Estimates which the great majority of the Members of the House. desire to have. After that the question resolves itself into two. The first is, is emolument a bonus? I am not a lawyer, and I do not venture to give a definite opinion upon the question whether "emolument" means "bonus," or whether it does not. But I should have thought that the commonsense point of view, apart from the legal point of view, was that "emolument"
and "bonus" were two different things. Let us suppose that a man has a salary of £500 a year and an allowance for a house, or that he has certain allowances for certain things that he does. I understand that even judges have held that the tips of railway porters were part of their wages. Therefore that kind of emolument, no doubt, will be included in the aggregate of the sum which the civil servant receives from the State. But, first of all, the emolument we are discussing is a War bonus. Throughout the period of the War we were told that there was to be a War bonus. I never could quite agree to the definition "War bonus," but still, it was a War bonus. Over and over again it was said that it was necessary to give a War bonus to meet the high cost of living. Therefore, it is perfectly clear to the ordinary mind that this was a special emolument connected with the War, and the War only. It was an emolument which lasted only for a given time, namely, the length of the War. There is no doubt that the original intention was that the War bonus should be given only during the War. Therefore, I conclude that the bonus is not, in the ordinary sense of the word, an emolument.
The two things to consider are whether this is obligatory and whether it is an emolument. It certainly is not an emolument, in my view, and equally certainly it is not obligatory, for the Statute is permissive. That being so, I wish in all seriousness to ask the Financial Secretary whether the Government think that this is the proper time to be extra generous to anyone? Why pick out this time, when they have appointed a Committee to reduce expenditure and when everybody is groaning under the burden of taxation, to stretch a point and to do something which they are not obliged to do, either by contract, implied or otherwise? I have heard it said seriously that the civil servant is not in any better position than certain clerks in banks. I saw a notice to that effect in the newspapers the other day. I would point out to civil servants that they are in a very different position from that of clerks in banks, because the shareholders of the banks have done fairly well during the War, and the taxpayer has not. It is doubly hard upon the taxpayer that he should be called upon to find employment—which he is only too glad to do—for the civil servant, that he should
be called upon to put them in the position in which they were before the War, and that they should now suffer practically no hardship. It is an impossible position and one which the taxpayer is perfectly justified in resenting.
There is the question of the number of civil servants who are retiring. I must confess that their wish to retire is only to be expected of human nature. If I were a civil servant and I knew that if I retired I could obtain much larger pension than that which I would receive by remaining in the service, in all probability I should retire. But what about the advantage to the State? Is it an advantage to the State that the man who thoroughly understands his duty should retire when in full possession of all his faculties? Is it an advantage that he should retire, when he is to receive a pension larger than that which he would receive if he remained in the service a little bit longer? I know that the War bonus varies with the cost of living. Therefore the pension varies. What are you to do with a man who retired two years ago when the cost of living was high? For the sake of argument let us say that he now receives £800 a year. Another man in the same position in the Civil Service and receiving the same salary, retires now, but receives only, say, £750. How can you justify that? Therefore I say that the only course open to the Government is to acknowledge having made a mistake and to reconsider the whole position.
I understood the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) to say that it was impossible to alter this Supplementary Estimate. Is that so? It may be that the Government have told various civil servants that they will bring before the House this Vote, and that if the Vote is passed the Government will do certain things. But surely does not the old rule apply, that until the Government have the money, that is to say until the House has voted it, the Government is not under obligation to give the money to the persons concerned? Everything depends on the House voting the money. If the Government alter that rule, if they come to the House and say, "Well, we do not suppose that the House likes it very much, but we have promised it and the House has to vote it." I ask what is the use of our coming here and suspend-
ing the 11 o'clock rule if, after all, it means nothing? Is it the fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already made a bargain and that we are obliged to carry it out? I have no wish in any kind of way to minimise the very excellent services which civil servants have always given, but I must have regard not only to the taxpayer but to the financial equilibrium of the country. I am certain that if we go on in. this way we shall not be able to make both ends meet. It is no earthly use for the Government to say through the newspapers and on platforms that they intend to economise, or for them to send out letters, as they did two and a half years ago, to the Departments telling them that if they did not cut down expenses someone would be sent who would do so, and then to do nothing. It is true that the Government appointed a Committee six months ago, but I would remind them that every month is telling, and that we cannot go on in this way. I shall, therefore, have very much pleasure in supporting a reduction of the Vote.

Mr. INSKIP: The Debate that took place on this subject a night or two ago must have convinced the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there was a great deal of genuine feeling in the House on this question. I hope that when he comes to reply he will realise that it will be putting a very great strain on those who desire to support the Government if he persists in the course which he indicated was the considered decision of the Government a night or two ago. I understand that what we are considering is the second of the two additional sums required, "Additional allowances and gratuities to established officers." I think it will be inconvenient and perhaps unnecessary, especially in the absence of the Law Officers. to consider what "emoluments" means. The question comes down to this: are the Treasury bound to make this allowance? I do not. suppose that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will contend that in the words of the Statute the Treasury are hound to make any such allowances or gratuities as have led to the necessity for this Supplementary Estimate.
It seems to me that you may consider these additional retirements which have led to the necessity of a Supplementary Estimate as either favourable to the
Civil Service or unfavourable. Suppose that any particular retirement is favourable to the Civil Service. It is a fair inference to say that the retention of that gentleman's services was not desirable. I do not know that in such a case there is any reason for giving him an additional allowance which the Treasury are not bound to give. Why should he be remunerated to an additional extent for a retirement which is conducive to the public welfare? That is a very odd way of regarding the services of civil servants. I suppose we may assume that in the great majority of cases the retirement is not conducive to the welfare of the Civil Service or in the public interest, that the Civil Service would have been very glad to have retained the services of these gentlemen who have retired. From that point of view, why should we remunerate in a special way gentlemen the retention of whose services the State desires? Why should we remunerate them specially for retiring from duties which they are still able to perform? Whichever way you look at it, it is a curious thing to give them additional allowances which the Treasury may with-hold at discretion.
It is an extension of the principle of the labourers in the vineyard. They, at any rate, were remunerated, or those that came in after the first, on the ground that they were ready to work but there was no man to hire them. These gentlemen are to be remunerated because they are unwilling to work though there is someone prepared to hire them. That is not a principle on which any service, public or private, can be conducted. Either these gentlemen ought to be continued in their position or they ought not. On either ground they ought to be content with the remuneration which is fair under the circumstances. What is the remuneration that is fair under the circumstances? Surely it is something which is related to the salary that they contracted to take when they entered the service. From all points of view the bonus, whether it was fair and right or not, was an additional emolument—if emolument is the right word—which they had no right to demand from the State but which they received, though many other persons not in the public service never did receive for equally patriotic and valuable services. And yet they carry into retirement this advantage. We have heard the Financial Secretary
speak on this subject. He always makes his statements with such courtesy and fairness that they influence the House perhaps beyond the weight of the arguments by which he supports his views. At the same time on this occasion I hope he will realise that the Treasury are under no compulsion, and whether economy was or was not the dominant consideration, the Treasury at the present time ought not to force this expenditure on the House. I hope everybody will be prepared to support the right hon. Member for Peebles in persuading, and if necessary compelling, the Government to alter the decision at which they have arrived on this question.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: I wish to add my criticism to that which has fallen from the previous three speakers with regard to this very large Supplementary Estimate. The question is not a new one to those of us who served on the Estimates Committee which sat for a few weeks last year, because we thrashed out this question there, and we were told, as we were told last week, that the reason it was thought fair to continue the existing rate of bonus which the civil servant was drawing at the time of his retirement was because of the heavy expense of re-assessing these pensions. I can only say, with regard to that point, that if that holds good, surely you cannot re-assess pay which has been drawn by civil servants. Surely if it can be done in the case of pay every six months it can be done in the case of pensions at intervals, say, of a year or two years, and it seems grossly unfair to the taxpayer that a very large number of civil servants who retired last August, when the cost of living was some 65 points higher than what it is now, should draw pensions based on that rate. I know they only get three-quarters of their war bonus assessed for this purpose, but they will for the rest of their lives be drawing pensions assessed on the cost of living rate which applied a year ago, and if, in the course of the next year, there is, as we all hope, a further large fall in the cost of living, those who retire now will get the benefit of that, and those who retired last August will be doubly benefited. I think the Government ought seriously to re-consider the whole question in view of the big decreases there have been in the cost of living in the last year, and which, I think, we may
reasonably expect in the course of this year also.
This surely is a reason for having on the Whitley Councils, which have a great deal to do with the recommendation if these questions, non-official members, because having only official members gives colour to the suggestion that the officials themselves benefit by recommendations they themselves make on these Councils. Those of us who know the Civil Service would be above thinking that, but it is rather an unfortunate position that the Whitley Councils dealing with these questions are composed entirely, as I understand, of civil servants, who may eventually benefit by bonuses of this sort, which is, as I say, a strong reason for non-officials being on these Whitley Councils. What is done elsewhere is that pensions are re-assessed at the end of every three years. It may be said that that is an injustice to the pensioner, but I do not agree. If the cost of living has gone down, the pensioner may get a lesser sum, but in view of the decreased cost of living it would go just as far as the higher sum which he had before. As a loyal supporter of the Government, I would urge that it is placing a very heavy strain upon us to be asked to vote for Estimates when there is a supplementary sum of £360,000 on top of the original Estimate.

Sir H. CRAIK: I am sure the House desires to do what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, but if we examine this Supplementary Estimate very closely, we shall see that we are here being asked to do more than is fair. What is precisely the question? Surely it is, What were the terms which were arranged between the civil servant and his employer at the critical moment when the terms of the engagement were made. It is clear that no person entered upon his office under any understanding that he should have this extra emolument. It is perfectly certain that all these people who are now retiring had made their terms long before, and that they suddenly, four or five years ago, were given an increase which they had no reason to expect and which they had not the smallest right to expect. It may have been just and reasonable, but they could not have enforced it at law. This bonus is not paid on the basis of any right which they had to form
such an expectation; they got it because of the special circumstances. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) refused to give a definition of the word "bonus," I am afraid we must, as common-sense men, take the bonus as we interpret it in ordinary life. I have turned up several dictionaries, and I found in "Webster" the definition: "Something which is in addition to what is ordinarily received, or strictly due to the recipient." This is something which you cannot consider as amongst the emoluments strictly due; it is given in addition, as a gratuity, beyond.
The question then comes to this: Is there anything in this bonus that is sacrosanct and cannot be altered and that you must keep inviolate when you are considering the question of pensions? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury must know that he himself and his Department have already interfered with that sacrosanct bonus. They made certain terms with the civil servants by which men in the higher grades were to receive a bonus of £500 a year. We thought that an excessive amount for these men to receive, and apparently, on reconsideration, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury came to the con[...]lusion that we had formed, because we were told that that bonus, in the case of men receiving over £2,000 a year, was to be withdrawn. I think I am giving a correct account, and that surely proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Treasury held themselves entitled to revise and reconsider that bonus which had been granted. Now why should that bonus on any reasonable ground be taken into account for those civil servants, and those civil servants alone, who retired during a particular short period? I understand—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that civil servants who I tired while this large bonus of £500 was still in operation have had it taken into account in the calculation of their pensions, but those who postponed their resignations until that bonus was revised or recalled by the Treasury will he placed at a very great disadvantage. Is there any fairness there? Is there anything there that makes the present attitude on the part of the Treasury something that cannot possibly be revised? If they maintain that they feel themselves bound by Acts of Parliament, they have already broken
these Acts of Parliament. What right had they to withdraw a bonus already granted? Those who have retired, naturally retired in exceedingly large numbers during that specially favourable period, which they knew would very soon come to an end. I do not presume to say that the retirement was due to the fact that the Treasury suddenly woke up to the fact that the number of these officials had been increased to an exaggerated and lavish extent, but is it necessary that the Treasury, having been generous, should carry that generosity further?
I know it has been suggested—and I have been asked to take part in an agitation—that you should revise all pensions. I refused to do it, and I think the Treasury is not called upon to do it. A bargain has been made, and the people who made it—I am one of those who did make it—have made their bargain, and I do not think it would be a proper thing to revise the pensions of those who have already retired, but when it comes to be a question of new retirements I think a better case than the Treasury has yet made out should be put before us before we agree to this Estimate. Do not let us he told that the Treasury are tied hard and fast by an Act of Parliament. I have shown that they themselves have shown that they are not so tied. Do not let us be told that a bonus, an ex gratia payment, which a man had no right to expect, however fair it might have been, stands on the same footing as a salary offered to him when he took office and on the faith of which he entered the service of the State. That is not the case. This is something quite different, and I say that it is for the civil servants to leave it to the House of Commons and to the Treasury, as the officers of the House of Commons, to say how far this bonus should apply when it comes to the consideration of the pension.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I have listened very carefully to this Debate, and I cannot see that there are two sides to this question. Indeed, I imagine that the Financial Secretary, after the speeches which have been delivered from every quarter of the House will now give way. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) suggested that it might not be possible to make an alteration of this particular sum, but that the Government should review the
whole situation. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and other speakers have suggested that it is quite possible now to review the whole situation, not merely for the future but now, and that is certainly a view to which I incline. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) said: "Do not let the Treasury tell us it is bound by Acts of Parliament."

Sir H. CRAIK: They are bound like everybody else, of course, but I say there are no Acts of Parliament here to bind them to do this particular thing.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That, I think, is the case, and if the Financial Secretary says that they are under a pledge, I shall be inclined to ask, what is nowadays the value of a pledge? Pledges have been made in recent years to various sections of the community, but they have been broken by one stroke of the pen. A pledge was made to agriculturists in the year 1920, under which many farmers bought their farms, and have since suffered very great losses. There was also the pledge to the agricultural labourers. Those pledges have been broken. The path of the Government is strewn with broken pledges, and an extra broken pledge here and there, so far as I can see, would make no difference at all. The real question is, what is just for the taxpayer, and what is just for the civil servant in this particular case? Listening, as I have been, to the speeches which have been made, so far as I have been able to form a judgment, it, is that this particular sum should be reviewed now, in the light of those speeches, and earnestly hope the Financial Secretary will be prepared to do that.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): There is one observation which, I think, has fallen from every Member who has taken part so far in the Debate which I particularly welcome. It is that the criticisms which are advanced against the Government in this respect are intended to have, no recoil of any sort or kind upon the heads of the civil servants themselves. I know the House, will pardon my laying emphasis on that at the beginning of my observations, lest any of the deserving old servants of the State, when they come to read our deliberations, were to suppose that they were being attacked by the Mem-
bers of the House, or needed any defence from me. In what I have to say I recognise and welcome that I am not called upon to defend the servants of the State for the action of the Government. I cannot but feel that a certain amount of the criticisms which have been advanced against this Estimate have been based upon, not a misunderstanding as to the principles, but a misunderstanding as to the way in which those principles work out in, practice. It is, I think, present in the minds of many Members of the House that the pensionaires are leaving the service of the State, and going away with some large permanent increase to their pensions, exceeding anything to which they are fairly entitled in respect of what is likely to be the permanent increase in the cost of living during their lifetime. I believe I can satisfy the House that that is not so. In the first place, let me recall this to the attention of the House. We are dealing here with lives that, owing to the course of Nature, have only a comparatively short number of years to run. These are not permanent charges on the State. A pension to a man of over 60, and averaging substantially over 60 in the whole pensionaire class, is nothing in the nature of a permanent charge.
What is the actual way in which this scheme works? It is somewhat intricate, and, in order to give the House any clear idea of how it works, I must ask the House to follow me through a very brief explanation. The amount of the bonus pensionable, in the first place, is not the whole bonus, as has been quite clearly explained by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). It is only 75 per cent. of the bonus that is pensionable, and, as he has also explained very fairly, correcting the financial error into which the fell on the previous occasion, the pension does not consist of 75 per cent. of the bonus, but only 75 per cent. of the bonus is pensionable. The maximum pension anyone can get is forty-eightieths of his retiring salary. He gets one-eightieth for every year of his service up to 40 years, so that the maximum he can get is one-half, and, therefore, the maximum pension of one who has served the State long and well for 40 years, so far as the bonus is concerned, is one-half of three-quarters of the bonus. That is, three-eighths of the bonus, which is nothing like the whole bonus.
Now, what is the bonus? Not, perhaps, among Members of the House, who have studied the question, but outside, in less well-informed quarters, it is no doubt supposed that the bonus is calculated to compensate a civil servant for every rise in the cost of living at any time. That is, of course, very far from being the case. The actual bonus to the civil servant is only a fractional cost of the statistically calculated rise in the cost of living at the time the bonus is paid. Let me take the range of salaries which has attracted, and is likely to attract-, most criticism; that is, the range of salaries of £500 and over. What is the amount of the bonus on the Civil Service salary of £500 at the present time? It is nothing like the actual total rise in the cost of living since the pre-War level. The bonus on the salary of 2500 now is 45 per cent., so that it is not the amount of the rise in the cost of living, which is at the present time 88 per cent., but 45 per cent., or, roughly, half, that he gets by way of bonus. That is not all. That is the actual bonus scheme, but the House must remember that quite lately we have, by a special cut of the executive, reduced that normal bonus of 45 per cent. on this man's salary of £500. That is what has usually been referred to in the phrase of the day as the "super-cut," which ranges from 10 per cent. redaction on this bonus of 45 per cent. in the case of a man with £500, and no less than 60 per cent. reduction in the case of a man with £1,600 a year. On a salary of over £2,000 a year, as the House knows, the civil servant gets nothing at all in the way of bonus. So that it comes to this. A man who has served 40 years for his maximum pension gets in the way of pensionable allowance one-half of three-quarters of the bonus.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I think it would help us very much if the hon. Gentleman would tell us, without going into all these fractions, what is the bonus on salaries of £500, £750 and £1,000 respectively.

Mr. YOUNG: I was coming to that. As I say, all that the civil servant, so much abused in this respect, gets in pension in respect of the bonus addition is three-eighths of the approximate increase in the cost of living at the present time. The figure which I will give the hon. and Learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) is an illustration of that. In no case in which the bonus addition is given can it
be bigger than on a pension of £538 a year, and there the increase due to making the bonus pensionable is about 1150.

Mr. S. WALSH: The first £200 does not count.

Mr. YOUNG: I have taken now the very strongest case against myself, that in no case can the increase due to making the bonus pensionable be more than £150 a year, and that happens to be a pension of £538.

Lord R. CECIL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what it would be without the bonus, and what with?

Mr. YOUNG: Without the bonus it would be £538, and with the bonus £151 more.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask if that was the highest bonus in existence two years ago?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, that would be on the peak scale. I think that interests the House most, because, as I say, it is the peak of the bonus addition to the pension. In no case could it be more, and I hope I have convinced the House that it is not unduly large. [HON. MEMBERS "What is the salary?"] I have not got that just at the moment, but I will get it. I have selected this instance because it is the instance in which the bonus addition to the pension is the biggest possible amount. It is the worst case against me. I can now give to the House what the.salary is on what that bonus is based. It is £1,077, the normal pension being £538 without the bonus, and the effect, of the bonus is to add £150 to that. In the case of any other salary and any other pension it would be even smaller than that. I believe, however, the House will regard more the actual facts of the total figure in the light of the experience of what is a fair pension than they will regard the mere ethical points as to what is a right basis of a calculation for making a pension. I freely recognise that it is my task to convince the House in this matter. I quite recognise that what affects the mind of the House in this matter is that we are casting burdens upon the taxpayer which the taxpayer ought not in fairness to be called upon to bear. In the course of discussion it is evident that the House is more interested—and rightly—in the
practical aspect of the question than in these rather fine, almost casuistical, discussions as to what is the right basis for the pension.
I ask the House in the first place to recognise that we are here dealing with figures which depend for their significance on the total, and not upon salaries of over £500, not upon the highly-paid civil servants, about whom I think it is not possible to make such a strong case as to need and urgency, because those with larger salaries, no doubt, will not feel the pinch and difficulty of the state of the times such as those with smaller salaries. The matter is much more pertinent to those whose salaries are under £500. In our previous discussion of this Estimate in the Committee of Supply, I was asked for information as to the whole range of the salaries which was covered by this Vote. The House will, I am sure, recognise that to give accurate statistics for the amounts covered by Supplementary Estimates, by only adding something additional to the main Estimate, is not wholly to the point. But I have done my best to get illustrative figures which will demonstrate to the House the sort of range of salaries with which we are dealing in these Supplementary Estimates. The figures will enable the House to see where in the pensions the burden lies.
In the first place, as regards the general Civil Service Estimates, like we are taking now, the number of pensions awarded in the quarter ending 30th September, 1921, which is the most important quarter, and the quarter covered by this Supplementary Estimate was 1,453. Of that number 1,124 were pensions on salaries and bonus below £500, and only 329 were pensions on salaries above £500 and bonus. The whole weight of the thing lies on the small salaries and not on the big salaries at all. Further, as regards the Customs which, as the House knows, is rather a specialised service where high salaries are numerous, the total number of retirements in 1921–2 was 641. Of this number the number above the £500 salary was 261, and the number below the £500 was 480. I have quoted these figures to the House, and I believe they imply support to the statement which I made to the Committee when this Estimate was being considered previously, that we are not here dealing with extraordinary salaries, with large salaries and
the pensions of higher civil servants, but we are here dealing with lowly paid civil servants in a small position, in close touch and closely at grips with the great difficulty entailed by the increase in the cost of living. I have to convince the House by illustration that the pensions we are paying in the case of such salaries are not excessive or unreasonable. That is really the root of the matter.
Let me quote to the House certain figures. I begin with an instance of the postman, who is about typical of the great run of the more lowly-paid members of the Civil Service. Take the weekly wage of a postman in a large provincial town. His weekly wage, with bonus, is altogether a maximum of 88s. 6d. per week. This is the highest pensionable income. At the present time the full pension on which be can retire at 60 years of age, after 40 years' service, taking, under this scheme, against which the criticism of the House has been directed, is 38s. a week. I venture to ask any Member of the House who is acquainted with the possibilities of living at the present time whether any reasonable employer would be objected to on the ground of extravagance if, after 40 years' service, he was to retire a servant who has served him well on a pension of 38s. a week?

Mr. JAMES WILSON: The employer never gives them anything.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: They sack them.

Mr. WILSON: The employer does not give them 38s. a week for working for him.

Mr. YOUNG: Supposing none of the bonus had been pensionable at all, supposing we had simply said that we would retire the postmen on their usual salary, it would have meant that men of 60 after 40 years' service would have been given a pension of 20s. a week. With great confidence I ask the House whether it would be possible to contend that that would be reasonable?

Lord R. CECIL: I thought my hon. and gallant Friend told us that the highest possible difference was in the case of a pension of £538 a year, and that it was £150, something between a third and
a quarter addition. Now he tells us that in this case of the postman it is nearly double. I do not understand how that is.

Mr. YOUNG: The difference in that case is about a quarter the £150 to which I referred as the biggest sum that can be paid. The point, however, I was making was this—and I return to it because I believe it is the root of the matter and that the attention of the House should not be diverted from it. Here we have a typical civil servant who has been retired under this scheme, and I would ask the House not to adopt so much the higher salaries, which are of little significance with regard to this Estimate, but the typical civil servant for whom the bulk of the money is needed.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that 38s. is what the provincial postmen, not the London postmen, would retire upon. What would that man's wages he in 1913?

Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid I cannot lay my hand upon figures of that sort in the middle of what is intended to be a Supplementary Estimate, but I should be very glad to obtain the information for the right hon. Baronet before I he close of our discussion. The figures which I quoted—which have already been too numerous—are those which appear to be essential to convey to the House the impression I desired to convey. Let me ask the House not to divert its mind, but to concentrate it upon what seems to be most significant in connection with this discussion and this scheme which we are now criticising, under which we are able to put the typical civil servant, that is the postman, on a pension of 38s. a week. I submit that is reasonable and that it not imposing upon the taxpayer a burden more than should be imposed. Had it not been for this arrangement of a pension and bonus we should have had to dismiss the postmen on a pension of 20s. a week. I believe with great confidence that the House will say that that would have been a disgrace, a disgrace to the State if it has to observe any sort of standard as reasonable.
In the course of our previous discussion a point was made against this scheme that it was unduly favourable to civil servants in comparison with other services of the State. I rather understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) to be brushing
over that argument when he challenged me to produce in the whole range of employment outside the Civil Service any scheme as favourable to the pensioners as this one. I feel that I am certainly under an obligation to satisfy the House that as regard the Civil Service no favour is being shown it as against the other servants of the State, the Army, the Navy, and so on. If I can satisfy the House that the effect of this scheme, in winch a bonus is made for the special purposes pensionable, is only to make the pension about as good for the civil servants as other schemes are for the soldier and the sailor—that it is only reasonable for the Civil Service—then it will he well. I may perhaps say this: that the increase in the pension of the naval officer per cent. over the pre-War basis is 50—that is a long service pension. The increase in the pension of the Army officer over his pre-War pension varies from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent.—I cannot give any average figure—while the increase on the war bonus of the civil servant with £800, say, whom I take as comparable to the naval and military officer with the peak pension, is 50 per cent. In view of this test of reasonability there has no evidence been given that the civil servants' scheme—

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tell us whether in the statistics he has just given us by way of comparison in the Civil Service and in the Army and Navy, these additions made of war bonus were additional to the cost of living or additional to the salary?

Mr. YOUNG: The addition to the military and naval pay was made to meet the increased cost of living, but it did not follow the line of the Civil Service bonus scheme. What I have taken are strictly comparable figures of the increases of the pensions over the pre-War pension. I trust that figure will satisfy the House, and it shows how much more this class got before the War in comparison with which the civil servant is no better off than the naval or military officer. The same in true as between the naval ratings and the soldiers of the Army, and the lowly-paid civil servant in the lower ranks of the Civil Service. I think it is necessary to give these figures in order to remove the wrong impression that very large and unreason-
able increases of bonus were being made to the Civil Service above the rate of bonuses paid elsewhere, and to remove the impression that what was being paid was absolutely unreasonable and out of all relation to any rise in the cost of living.
I trust these figures will satisfy the House that so far from that being the case, taking them in comparison with what you need to live upon, the pensions being paid are not too large, and in comparison to the pensions paid to other servants of the State they are not disproportionate or too big. If you compare them with the increase in the cost of living, the allowance made to the civil servant in respect of the rise in the cost of living is very trifling in comparison, and so far from giving him the whole rise in the cost of living, we only give him a very small part of the actual estimated rise.

Sir C. WARNER: The hon. Gentleman has given the case of the officer in the Army and Navy and compared his pension with the higher civil servant's pension, but he has not given the case of the sergeant or the petty officer who served for a long time and compared him with the postman.

Mr. YOUNG: I have not done so, because I did not wish to weary the House, but I will give the figures. The increase in the pension of the naval rating, in comparison with his pension before the War, is very nearly 200 per cent. The increase in the pension of the man in the Army is 150 per cent. If you take the postman with the maximum service, his increase is 120 per cent., se that, as a matter of fact, in the case of the lower-paid ranks the Civil Service compares less favourably than with the pension of the man in the Navy or the Army.

Sir W. PEARCE: We do not happen to know what the exact figure is in the Army and the Navy.

Mr. YOUNG: I find very great difficulty in giving a corresponding figure, but I do not think if I could give it that it would inform the House very much. In such a rapid summary it appears to me better to concentrate attention upon the real key figure which is, as regards this comparison between Military and
Civil Service pensions, that the soldier's pension has increased 150 per cent. in comparison to what it was before the War, and that the postman's pension has increased by 120 per cent.

Sir F. BANBURY: Was not the pension in the Army and the Navy very small before the War?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, and so was the postman's pension. It is by no means admitted that, as regards a pre-War comparison, an equally strong argument might be advanced that the pensions of the postmen and the lower-paid ranks of the Civil Service were as inadequate as the pensions of the soldier and the sailor. One or two general arguments were advanced upon which I would like to say a word of elucidation. A very natural error has been made in interpreting the actual hearing of the Estimate. As I have previously explained, the second sub-head is the amount necessary in order to provide for the statutory lump sum which would have to be paid whether the bonus was pensionable or not, and the actual amount added by the pensionable bonus is a very much less sum than that represented by the second sub-head. The argument was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) that because the Treasury were free to re-allocate the percentage allowance of bonus on the super cut, they should be able to revise this scheme of dealing with the pensions. I think that shows a misconception of the whole basis of the pension which I advanced on a previous occasion as to the necessity for this amount. The bonus itself is based upon the Whitley Agreement for the Civil Service, but the necessity for making part of the bonus pensionable is not based at bottom upon any such agreement, but it is based upon the fact that the emoluments paid to the Civil Service are to be pensioned. The argument which has been used is that a sum which is only paid for a number of years is not strictly an emolument.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that this bonus, paid over a series of years, necessarily varies from year to year in its amount, and may in time disappear altogether?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, and I think that is an inherent difficulty in the argument
advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and others who have taken the same view. Any pension is based upon the salary which the man receives at the time he retires, and that salary often varies over a period of years. The fact that the bonus varies does not make it different to his ordinary remuneration. You do not pension a man on his average salary, but upon the salary paid to him at the time of his retirement, and upon his emoluments. I fail to understand how this particular allowance cannot be called an emolument. I submit for the consideration of the House that common sense, as well as the legal view of what the true rights of pensioners are, is this, that you calculate the man's pension on what he is getting at the time he retires, leaving out of the question whether it is a matter of bonus or not.
The real question is what his actual remuneration is when he retires, and you pension him on that. Surely you must take into account the fact that if the man had gone on in the service, his salary would have fallen with the fall in the cost of living. My answer to that argument is that we have done this, and that is just what I explained on the previous occasion. The effect of reducing part of his bonus upon which you pension him is, in fact, taking into account the fall in the cost of living. Hon. Members argue that you ought to allow for the coming fall in the cost of living but my answer is that this has been done by reducing the pensionable part of the bonus by 25 per cent. I believe that to some extent these criticisms have been made because it has not been realised that the actual bonuses are not more than is barely necessary, and which any good employer would give at the present time. For these reasons I think the pension paid on the temporary bonus is justified.

Mr. S. WALSH: I am very glad to have heard the concluding remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because this Estimate has given rise to considerable searchings in the mind of the Committee. I do not think there is a single hon. Member who has a complaint to make as to the zeal and ability of the civil servant, and I would like to re-echo from these benches my appreciation. There is not a single hon. Member here who has been brought into contact with the Civil Service who could fail to
recognise the great zeal and, indeed, the self-sacrifice that many of them have shown. I think, after all, this is a matter of whether the obligation into which this House has entered shall or shall not be observed.
Some years ago there was nobody in the country so keen upon the desirability of entering into Whitley agreements for removing the causes of friction between employers and employed as the Members of this House; indeed, the Whitley Council became one of daily usage, and the name of the Speaker of this House is most honourably associated with that particular endeavour on the part of employers and employed to lessen the causes of friction if not entirely to remove them. An hon. Friend near me reminds me that this occurred when wages were going up. I am not going for one moment to carp at the motives that animated practically every Member of this House when they urged on the nation generally the need for removing causes of friction between employers and workmen. If that need ever existed, as it undoubtedly does, it surely exists as much on the part of this House in its relations towards its servants as it does on the part of employers of labour outside. I am speaking subject to some little correction, but I think four or five years have elapsed since the Civil Service Whitley Council was established. It was about 1915 that the Whitley Council was set up with the complete assent of this House, and there has never been a single word spoken by anyone in this House or outside against the composition of the Council. It has never been suggested for a single moment that its composition was such as to throw doubt on the honesty of its findings. It is, therefore, I think, rather late in the day now to suggest that the composition of the Whitley Council in respect of the Civil Service is not such as would justify us in placing full reliance on the honesty of its findings.
What are those findings? Remember that everyone of these pensioned men, as the Financial Secretary has stated, had been for a very long time in the service of the State. As time progressed the civil servant chose what he conceived was the proper time to retire, and he retired on conditions that were perfectly well known and had been openly agreed upon between Parliament and the service.
These men retired when they had done 40 years' service, or at such other period as they were entitled to. They are of course all established men. Every penny of this Vote applies to men who have been in the established service of the State, and in retiring as they did they took no unfair advantage of any conditions of service. They retired in fact under conditions which were fully justified, and they got their 40/80ths or whatever the amount was and took not a single copper more than they were entitled to. During the War events took place which raised the cost of living enormously. Can anyone imagine that a servant of this House should be debarred from receiving a legitimate increase in his emoluments when affected by the rise in the cost of living just as in the same way people outside this House got their wages and salaries increased? Surely the people whom we employ have the same right to urge upon Parliament that in respect of the cost of living having gone up there ought to be proper consideration paid to that fact. When the War itself ended the conditions of peace times were not restored, and even to-day the cost of living, according to the official figure, is 88 per cent. above the pre-War figure. Personally I think it is much nearer 108 per cent above pre-War cost, but taking the lower figures, can anyone justify this House in saying to these men, "You have given us 40 years or more devoted service, but utterly regardless of the fact that the War has resulted in conditions which have greatly increased the cost of living, you are not to receive in your pension any recognition of the bonus we paid to our servants. We will pay no attention to the rise in the cost of living, we will pension you on the salary you actually received, but the bonus we allowed you shall not be taken into account? "
Have we taken an undue proportion of that bonus into account? I submit the Financial Secretary is entitled to say that we have not. Only 75 per cent. of the bonus is pensionable, and only one-half of that is really brought into this account. To speak more accurately, only three-eighths of the amount is brought into the account. It should be remembered also that it was a very long time after the cost of living had commenced rising enormously that any recognition of it was made to this class of honourable public servant. The Financial Secretary
is also right in saying that we have discounted in advance the value of the pension chargeable on the actual amount of the bonus paid. When it is seen we are only giving 50 per cent. of the three-fourths increase in the cost of living, surely it must be admitted that provision is made for years in advance for any possible fall in that cost. The 50 per cent. now paid is by no means equal to the enormous increase in the cost of living which these people have to meet, and therefore we are not entitled to vote against this Estimate. To carry my point further, I ask hon. Members to believe that the party with which I am more directly associated has often been very seriously aggrieved when the State has, as we conceive, broken its obligations to them. I could enumerate cases—it would serve no useful purpose now to do so—but the mere fact that in our opinion the State has departed from its pledged obligations does not justify our continuing that kind of policy. Two wrongs never make a right. It is quite true to say that the Government have departed from their obligations to the miners, the agriculturists and many other people. But that is no justification—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is carrying his point far beyond the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. WALSH: These arguments have all of them been dealt with in this Debate without the slightest attempt being made by you or your predecessor in the Chair to rule them out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman was bringing in contentious matters.

Mr. WALSH: Oh, no. I was not doing that, except to point out that the mere fact that obligations have been broken in the past does not justify this House this afternoon in breaking further obligations. It is true that the Civil Service Whitley Council went fully into this matter, and that from the lowest paid civil servant to the highest paid the whole position was reviewed. This is the result of their findings, and I think it would be a grievous departure on the part of this House if it allowed the impression to develop more widely than at present, that the House is unmindful of its obligations to its
servants. We ought to see to it that, whatever we may do with regard to our own emoluments and our pensions, if we ever live to receive them, at least in the minds of servants who have admittedly given faithful and efficient service, there shall not dwell any feeling that the State is unmindful of the fact that it had the best of their service before they retired. Very few years will still remain to many of them to receive this pension guaranteed by the State, a pension determined by their Council, and it would be a grievous error on our part if we did anything to create distrust. The precedent would not rest there. Every employer would be entitled to say, "It is true that in the industry with which I am associated we have set up a Whitley Council, and have agreed upon a certain wage and a certain retiring pension, but it is not binding on me." There is no ill-conditioned employer who would not think he received encouragement and assistance in taking similar action to that which had been taken by the State in breaking its obligations, as it would do if the House this afternoon agreed to act on the lines suggested in this Amendment. I hope we shall not do anything of the kind. Let us see to it that the bond we have entered into with these people is honoured. I speak for the party with which I am associated when I say we shall give the Government our assistance this afternoon, although possibly it is a rather unusual course of procedure to adopt.

Viscount WOLMER: We all know that when the Government wish to perpetrate a piece of extravagance they can rely on the absolutely undivided support of the Labour party. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) in his old role of supporting the Coalition Government in some wasteful extravagant policy. But there was one remark which fell from the right hon. Gentleman with which I most heartily agree. I think every Member of this House agreed with him when he said that he did not wish to see the State repudiate its obligations. That is a question on which I am entirely with him, but I do not see how it arises on this Vote. These civil servants entered the service of the State on certain conditions. During their period of service the State gave them a bonus in order to enable them to keep pace with the increased cost of living. That was a
bonus given by the State. There was no obligation on the part of the State to give it, and therefore the civil servant has no right to claim that the bonus shall form part of the pension.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did the Noble Lord say the State gave the bonus in order to keep faith with the Civil Service or was it in order to keep pace with the increased cost of living?

Viscount WOLMER: To keep pace; I said, with the increase in the cost of living. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince said there was an obligation on the part of the State to assess the pension on the bonus. With that argument I entirely disagree. I can see no obligation on the part of the State to treat this bonus as an emolument on which pensions should be paid. If the hon. Gentleman can convince me that there was an obligation, that the State had given an undertaking, that these civil servants had entered their profession on an under standing of that sort, I agree that that, would be an entirely different matter. Therefore, the only question that remains is whether these civil servants are entitled to this increased pension as an act of justice. Let me take the instance that the Financial Secretary gave to the House, namely, that of a postman in a provincial town, who at the present moment is receiving a salary of 88s. 6d. a week, and who, if he retires after 40 years' service, under the Government proposals will get a pension of 38s., while, if this Estimate were rejected, he would only get a pension of 20s.

Mr. MILLS: And come on the guardians.

Viscount WOLMER: The point that I want to put to the hon. Gentleman and to the House is this: is this a scale on which the other wage-earners of the country are being remunerated at the present moment, and is it a scale on which it is possible that they could be remunerated? It is an entire fallacy to think that the rich pay all the taxes Everyone knows that the poor contribute to the taxes, and must contribute, just as much, in proportion, as the rich; and, as representing an agricultural constituency, I ask what right you have to tax agricultural labourers, who are only getting at the present moment 35s a week, and who, when they retire, will
receive no pension at all, in order to give a pension of nearly £2 a week to a civil servant who is at the present moment receiving 88s. 6d.? The hon. Gentleman spoke of these pensions as being miserable to the last degree. He spoke as if he would like to increase them very much, and, of course, everyone would like to increase pensions if the State could afford it; but what right have we to give pensions on a scale for which other wage-earners in the country can never hope? The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a pension of £1 a week was an impossibly low figure for a civil servant, but there are thousands of wage-earners in this country who will never get, and can never get, a pension of £1 a week. Would the hon. Gentleman argue for a moment that industry in this country is capable of paying a standard wage of 88s. and a pension at the age of 60 of 38s.?

Earl WINTERTON: For an unskilled job.

Mr. YOUNG: The figures given by the Noble Lord are perfectly right, but I am not sure whether he heard my observation that the wage of 88s. 6d. per week is a maximum wage, after a definite period of service.

Viscount WOLMER: I did hear that, and to make my narrative complete I should qualify my hypothesis. Would the hon. Gentleman pretend for a moment that it would be possible, in the interests of this country, to have a scale of wages which enabled every man who had done 40 years' service to be paid at the rata of 88s. 6d. a week, and then to retire on a pension of 38s.? It is not a question whether we should not like it. Of course, everyone would like to see such a state of affairs. The question is, can the country afford it; can the industries of this country afford it? We know that it is quite impossible for the industries of this country to pay wages on that scale or anything like it in the general run of employment. What justification is there, therefore, for paying civil servants who are doing the same sort of work—that is to say, work that requires the same amount of skill and education and ability—that is performed by other wage-earners, a remuneration so vastly in excess of what other wage-earners can ever hope to obtain. The money has got to come from the wage-earners of this country in the long run. You cannot get
away from that fact. The idea that all the taxes in the land can be placed upon the shoulders of the rich and then can be distributed in large salaries and pensions to civil servants, to the employés of the Government, is a complete fallacy. That is what the country is suffering from at the present moment. These vast Estimates, these swollen Budgets that greet us, are the result of the Government trying to create a new heaven and a new earth within their own Civil Service. They have fixed a standard of remuneration which represents the ideal rather than what it is possible to pay, and if this country wants to get back to solvency we must look the facts in the face. I venture to maintain that the Government has no right to pay these civil servants more than the market rate for labour. It cannot afford to pay more than what a good employer—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The Noble Lord is getting on rather wide ground—a good deal wider than the actual pensions which we are now considering.

Viscount WOLMER: I am arguing whether it is right to increase the pensions of civil servants in relation to their bonuses, and I have endeavoured to argue that it would be impossible for industry as a whole to follow any such course. Therefore I say that the Government is not warranted in following that course, because it is not fair and right to the other wage-earners in the country that civil servants should be paid at a rate so grossly above the market rate of wages. If these civil servants had any contract with the Government that they were to receive such a pension when they retired, then, no matter how exaggerated thought the pension, I would not oppose it, because it would have been a question of contract. But confessedly there is no contract at issue at all. It is purely a question whether the Government are going to be generous to these men or not, and I say that they are being generous to men who are already better paid than most wage-earners in this country, and they are proposing to give them pensions to which hardly any wage-earners can dare to look forward. The Government is not justified in spending this money; the country cannot afford it; there is no statutory obligation on them to pay it.
The money has to come out of the pockets of the wage-earners in the end, and, although they can always rely on the support of the Labour party in any extravagance, I hope they will not get the support of the rest of the House.

Major ENTWISTLE: I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) and agree with every word that he said in praise of Whitley Councils. The only criticism I have to make is that I do not see what is the relevance of what he said with regard to Whitley Councils to the point at issue. It was also very interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman give general support and admiration to the Civil Service, as to which also I am in entire agreement with him. I think that some criticism might even be levelled at the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Estimate, that, in their various dealings with the question, the Government have not been too generous in their acknowledgment of the services rendered by their own officials, and therefore I am far from disagreeing w the general admiration of the character and nature of the services rendered by our civil servants: but again I say that that also is quite irrelevant to the issue on which we are asked to vote this afternoon. No adequate answer has been given to the point which has been raised that we are here awarding permanent pensions for life on the basis of a salary plus a fluctuating bonus. Obviously the natural and logical way in which to deal with this question, if there be any hardship in pensions being awarded on permanent salaries at the present time, is by adding a bonus to the pension, that bonus being variable on a sliding scale. If that were the proposal which the Government were putting before the House, I have no doubt that it would meet with general support, and it would have this great advantage to the country, that, if the cost of living falls to pre-War level or anything like it, the country would get that permanent benefit of a reduction in the pensions We are told, however. by the hon Gentleman that if the Government adopted that system it would result in so much inconvenience of machinery and administration, so much greater trouble to the officials, that the cost would not be worth the trouble involved. To my mind that is an argument which can hardly commend itself to the common
sense of the House. Let us think what it means. The cost of living may fall to something like pre-War level in the course of a year, or two or three years. I do not know on what actuarial basis the average life of a pensioner is taken, but, at any rate, it is a considerable number of years. It may be 10, 15, 20, or 30 years; I do not know what it is, but it is certainly far longer than the cost of living is likely to continue at its present figure. Can we say that the slight additional expenditure during this temporary period of increase in the cost of living would more than counterbalance the permanent saving to the country on these pensions when the cost of living falls? The House will need a good deal more argument and a good deal more figures and data to convince it of that.
6.0 P.M.
We are told that the Government were bound to do this because, by Act of Parliament, pensions have to be based on the emoluments of civil servants. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles expressed a view rather contrary to the legal interpretation of emolument as including a temporary bonus, but I am not sure that I agree with him. I happen to have some knowledge of law, and am rather inclined to think that the term "emolument," having a very wide meaning, probably does include a bonus; but I say that that is no defence for the Government at all. This temporary war bonus was put on, and it would have been the simplest thing in the world, before any obligations had been incurred, before any hopes had been raised on which civil servants might be relying, to pass an Act of Parliament of one line merely saying that emoluments should not include for purposes of permanent pensions a temporary war bonus. I venture to think that on one would have challenged such an Act as being at all unfair or a breach of faith, in fact, it would have been one of the most popular Measures that this Government could have brought forward. There can, therefore, be no excuse on legal grounds. Admittedly, the term "emolument" was never designed to cover such temporary and fluctuating factor as the enormous increase in the cost of living due to the War and the exceptional thing known as a war bonus; so that it could not be said that there was any breach of faith or letting down of the
permanent official by declaring that "emolument," under the Act, should not include a temporary bonus. I think, therefore, that that argument is on entirely false ground. There is another thing which strikes me as very extraordinary in the attitude of the Government in dealing with these questions of pensions, and that is that when they were dealing with the general bonus for officials in their last Estimate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a great feeling of self-satisfaction, announced that the bonus of the higher-paid civil servants had been taken away altogether. That saved, I understand, about £500,000. At the very time when he was arrogating to himself this saving of a temporary charge of 1500,000 he was encouraging the civil servants to retire on pension when the bonus was at its very highest. I believe every encouragement was offered to get rid of these servants, partly, again, because they could gain credit in the country for exercising economies by reducing the Service, and a nice way that was of saving money to the State! By means of saving £500,000 in one hand of a temporary charge they were adding a permanent charge to the liabilities of the country. That is an instance of the mentality of the Coalition and its general workings. Being pressed in one direction they exercised economy and, as the result of it, in order, again to obtain a certain amount of popularity, they are adding to the charges more than the amount by which they are already saving the country. That is a very important consideration which the House ought to take into notice.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) thought that any opposition to this proposal of the Government was attacking the Civil Service, and he thought that general support of the Civil Service was necessary. That argument is entirely beside the mark, because if you really asked for the honest opinion of the civil servants who are left in the Service to-day they would also be opposed to this system of giving to those particular servants who are fortunate enough to retire at this moment a higher pension than they will get. Here are civil servants who are continuing in the Service and going on to serve their country. They are to receive a much lower pension than servants who have not served their
full period, but have been encouraged and induced to retire, and I understand there was a huge block of applications to obtain retirement because of this very system of pension based on temporary bonus. It is very unfair and unjust to the far larger mass of civil servants who have remained behind doing their duty than this smaller body of servants who have taken advantage of this illogical and ill-conceived plan of the Government to retiring people on permanent pensions, assessing the pension on the basis of a temporary and fluctuating salary. No answer at all has been given to the only logical course which the Government could have taken, which was to award the pension on the permanent salary, and if that was not sufficient under the present exceptional conditions, to award a bonus on the pension, which would be subject, on a sliding scale, to revision when the cost of living fell.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Some of us sitting on these Benches cannot help feeling a certain resentment when we are lectured by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite as to how we ought to carry out our obligations. I have been a civil servant myself, and I have had a bonus, which I did not keep long enough to be pensionable, and I am not going to be told by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House that I have not got as high a feeling of gratitude for the Civil Service, and respect for it, and as great a determination to carry out my obligations towards it as they have. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this was entirely a question of carrying out the agreement of a Whitley Council. It is no such thing. Even if it were, I think the House would be in a very difficult position if it were to allow the Government to shelter itself behind the agreements of an extra Parliamentary body. The Government is responsible for whatever their Whitley Council may decide, and responsible to us, but it is not in great part a question of the Whitley Council at all. Salaries above a certain level were excluded from the consideration of the Whitley Council and consequently the pensions on those salaries were excluded.

Mr. YOUNG: The Noble Lord is quite right about salaries over £500 a year being excluded, but the question of allowances was not excluded.

Lord E. PERCY: I think we must say that if any questions of pensions on higher salaries have been considered by the Whitley Council they should not have been so considered, and the Government should not have allowed them to be considered, because neither on the official side nor on the Civil Service side was there anyone who could take an impartial attitude on such a question. I know the Government tried to exclude this question from the Whitley Council, and if they failed to exclude any such question they failed very seriously in their duty. On this question of emoluments I am no lawyer and I will not quarrel with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on that subject, but the Treasury has always strenuously insisted that overtime was not pensionable. I have come across, as every other Member has done in his constituency, cases of very great hardship because of that rule that if a man during the last two years or year of his service works very hard indeed and increases his salary by reason of the amount of work he gives to the State, that is not to be considered in his pension at all—it is not an emolument —but if he does not give any extra work but gets his increased emolument automatically, it is to be pensionable Surely that is absurd. I know it is very easy to score off the Financial Secretary.to the Treasury on the Pension Laws. There is no set. of legislation in this country that wants revision, codification, and improvement so urgently as the Pension Laws. But in the situation which has been insisted on by almost everyone we feel fundamentally dissatisfied with the action of the Government in this matter and their lack of foresight, and when the Financial Secretary tells us that this makes no measurable difference, the difference it makes is the £380,000 in he Supplementary Estimate, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in this House that as a matter of fact he never anticipated that this pension bargain, so far as it was a bargain, which he came to would cost anything like this sum. In that situation we cannot bat feel intensely dissatisfied with the Government and cannot but vote against them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I know what will happen to-morrow. Everyone of the stunt newspapers will come out with large flaring headlines—Alliance between
Wastrel Labour and the Wastrel Government. We shall have the usual allusions to Poplar and, so far from the Government being the read villains of the piece, it will be Labour. No doubt, it is our gradual approach to power which creates this hostility. But apart from that altogether, let us make quite clear the standpoint of the Labour party in this matter. The Noble Lord opposite and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), having listened to the Debate, which has now gone on for two days, can still say that the Whitley Councils have nothing whatever to do with the Vote we are giving to-day. As a matter of fact, the Whitley Councils have everything to do with the Vote the Labour party is giving to-day. I think the decision of the Whitley Council in connection with the civil servants is wrong, or, at least, most unfortunate, but, having got that decision, we and the Government, and even the wastrel Labour party, are bound to stand by its decision as long as we stand by the Whitley Councils. I have always looked on the Whitley Councils with some suspicion, whether it be in connection with the civil servants or any of the great industries of the country. I think they are apt too often to become combines of worker and employer for the robbery of the public. But for good or evil we set up Whitley Councils in connection with civil servants. There seems to be still some doubt as to whether we are bound by the decisions of these Whitley Councils. The bonus was first made pensionable in part in connection with the Civil Service Arbitration Board Award of March, 1919. Subsequent agreements endorsed the principle and the present arrangement, under which 75 per cent. of the bonus received at the date of retirement reckons as an emolument for pension purposes, was embodied in the Civil Service Whitley Council Cost of Living Agreement, dated 14th May, 1920.

Lord E. PERCY: To what salaries did that agreement apply?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Whitley Council Agreement in connection with civil servants applies to salaries under £500, but in that case they went beyond the ostensible scope of the Whitley Councils. I am afraid we must either throw over the Whitley Council on the ground
that they went beyond their power or that their decision does not bind the House, or stand by them. On these benches we have complained of the action of the Government in not standing to their agreements. We think they have betrayed the working classes, for instance, over unemployment Insurance. Having guaranteed 20s. a week they cut them down to 15s. We think that they also broke the agreement with the agricultural labourers when they threw over the Wages Board, but two wrongs do not make one right. It will not be for us to complain of the action of the Government in connection with the agricultural labourer, or in connection with unemployed insurance benefit, and at the same time to urge the Government to break this agreement that they have come to with members of the Civil Service. I am impressed on the Labour Benches, as I was on any other bench on which I have sat, with the absolute necessity of any Government, whatever Government is in power, sticking to its agreements and keeping faith with the public, and with every section of the public, and it is on these grounds that I am asking my party, in spite of their own predisposition, which has been increased within the last two days, to take the line of action I have suggested. We must put our foot clown firmly, and say that agreements to which the Government is pledged have to be honoured, not only by the Government but by the Members of this House who take their responsibilities seriously.
It is all very well for the Noble Lord to get up and make a speech which will be invaluable to the "Daily Express" tomorrow; but that is not statesmanship. It may be politics as understood by his class, but it is not what the people ought to lend themselves to who desire to gain the confidence either of the Civil Service of this country or of the people to whom they are ultimately responsible, the electorate. We hold that this Agreement must stand. Personally, I would never have made the original arrangement. I think it is a ridiculous arrangement to which the Whitley Council came; an arrangement under which people must hurry up to get out of the Service now while the bonus is high. I would point out to those who desire to get out of the Service that they must be quick about it, because there is another cut of 20 per cent. coming on the 1st March, and if they
wish to seize what I think is the foolish decision of the Whitley Council they must take advantage of it quickly. Whether that decision is wise or foolish we have to stick to that decision, and we mean to do so in the Lobby.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Many of us who are supporting the Amendment do so with the intention of keeping faith with the Civil Service, and also with a desire that so long as the cost of living is up the bonus should be paid on that account. What we object to is capitalising for all time the cost of living, which may be abnormally high at the present time. The Financial Secretary suggested that the. 75 per cent. which had been agreed to was a fair figure to arrive at, but I submit that the very fact that this Estimate for this year has been so tremendously increased is evidence that those who are to draw the pension imagine that they are going to score at the expense of the Government, and at the expense of the public, by the terms offered. To suggest that the Estimate can be exceeded by £360,000 in one year is surely evidence that the terms offered were more favourable than was originally anticipated. Whilst we keep faith with the Civil Service, and whilst we pay the bonus so long as the cost of living is up, we maintain that when the cost of living falls the State have the right to revise the bonus. The Financial Secretary suggested that in the Army and Navy there had been greater increases. I should like to ask him whether it is not a fact that in the pensions given in the Army and Navy part of the pension is open to reduction as the cost of living falls. If that is so, that surely means that his comparison is fallacious, and the illustration which he gave in support of his case as to the experience of the Army and Navy is surely an argument in favour of the contention put forward that there ought to be a variation in the pension according to the cost of living. Whilst it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that 38s. per week pension is not too much to pay to the postman, yet when the cost of living falls that pension should be gradually reduced. If not, who are you penalising?
We want to be fair all round. What about the old age pensioners who are getting their pre-War pensions? What about those in the Post Office service who are getting pre-War pensions? What
about the pre-War civil servants, and the pre-War Army man who retired on pension? They have not been increased to this extent. While we desire to be fair to the Civil Service, we want to be fair to that larger community outside who, in one way or the other, through their food taxes or in other ways, will have to provide this extra payment, which some of us suggest is nor really due if the cost of living falls. Therefore, if we keep faith with what has been done in the past, so far as the payment of the bonus is concerned while the cost of living remains high, surely the Government might consider whether it is not possible to vary the pensions payable on bonus according to the cost of living. By capitalising the cost of living in the pension the Government are setting an example to the local authorities which will be hard for them to follow. In many industrial districts the rates are mounting up by leaps and bounds, and if the Government set up this wrong financial standard, and apply it to their civil servants, it will be very difficult for the local authorities to resist claims put forward by their employés when they are drawing up superannuation scales. Therefore, in the interests of the large industrial areas, we advocate a sound policy based on the lines put forward in the lines of the Amendment.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), on behalf of the Labour party, adopted a somewhat hilarious tone in reference to the two recent by-elections; but I would warn him that the result of those by-elections is not due to love for the Labour party, but to hatred of the Coalition in producing Estimates very similar to the one now before us, and forcing them through the House of Commons. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury wandered right round the real point. There are only two points at issue. First of all, why should a temporary War bonus be counted for the purposes of a permanent pension, and not on a sliding scale according to the cost of living, to which no one would object? The system that has been adopted means that in future these retired civil servants will be receiving a pension based on war bonus, irrespective of any fall in the cost of living. In the second place, the vital thing at the present time is that we should economise, but I do not think the repre-
sentatives of the Government fully realise the state of the country. When this Vote came before the House in Committee last Wednesday, and was defended by the Government, and we failed to get a reduction, a deputation was actually interviewing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing the business men of the country, and telling him that unless we secure a reduction in expenditure and a reduction in taxation a financial crash is coming in the near future. No doubt many hon. Members read the result of the deputation.
Is it realised what this Vote cost last year and what it is costing this year? Last year the Vote cost £1,020,505, and this year,£1,607,604, or an increase of practically £500,000 for superannuation and retired allowances, while on the Vote for Customs and Excise the amount is £1,750,000. How does the Financial Secretary account for this enormous increase in the present year? When the last revision of bonus was made, the cost of living was 130 per cent. higher than in 1914, but the cost of living to-day is only 88 per cent. higher than the cost of living in 1914. Therefore, we are reckoning a cost of living basis which is 40 per cent. higher than that which prevails to-day, and all because the Treasury find it inexpedient or too troublesome to revise the cost of living at less than an interval of six months.
Are we going to get any reduction in any of these Estimates? The Government will come down on every one of the Supplementary Estimates and give reasons why we should not have a reduction. If any Estimate deserves to be reduced this Estimate does. When the division is taken to-day it will be an extremely interesting one, because if we are ever to get a reduction of expenditure it is going to be shown in to-day's division. The Labour party may vote for the Government, but I hope that the remaining Members of the House will give a majority against the Government on this question, in order to show that we do think seriously about this question. I ask the Financial Secretary if he will consider taking this matter back for further consideration, and giving another day for discussion. Consideration is required as to whether the war bonus should not be revised earlier than at six months' intervals. We shall have this Bill, year after year,
coming up. Before we take this great burden upon us, as we shall do if we pass the Vote to-day, I hope we shall seriously consider the whole matter, and that the Financial Secretary will withdraw the Vote.

Mr. R. YOUNG: The last speaker is evidently very optimistic that at no very far distant date the cost of living will fall to the pre-War level. I do not share that opinion, and I do not think there are many hon. Members who will agree with that opinion. The amount of bonus which we are discussing this afternoon, and upon which the pension is based is, so far as I can understand it, not equal to the cost of living at the present time. Even if it were, we have no right to run away from an obligation entailed upon us first by statutory enactment, and secondly by the decision of the Whitley Council. Last week when this matter was under discussion there was some surprise expressed that the Labour party, for some mysterious reason, did not vote. We were in quite a justifiable quandary for the moment. We recognised that something required investigation in relation to the bonus as to why it should become a part of a definite pension paid to any civil servant. I was under no misapprehension, I listened very carefully to the explanations given, and I heard it laid clown that emoluments were considered in the statutory Act as binding upon the Government, and that the word "emolument" included, for that purpose, the war bonus paid to civil servants.
I have got to ask myself not whether the word should be included, but whether the Government have given a just interpretation of the Act which they cited to us on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), if I remember aright, in the early part of the Debate was rather inclined to agree with the Government. Later on he changed his mind, because he had looked up the Statute and found that there were some words of a permissive character in the Statute. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the worst feature of legislation in this country in days gone by, whether passed by his party or by other party, has been that it made certain things permissive for the purpose of contracting unjustly the interests of those who are supposed to
benefit. But I find this afternoon that the hon. and gallant Member for South-West Hull (Major Entwistle) is quite sure that the word "emolument" does cover war bonus. Then the first thing to determine—we have determined it to our own satisfaction—is that we have an obligation to the Civil Service as a result of that Act of Parliament. Not that we think that the war bonus is a good thing to be included in such a pension, because what we are doing to-day is not so much criticising the present Government as criticising the past Government who should have passed an Act of Parliament preventing bonuses becoming a part of the emolument.
That being our first position we find this second difficulty. The Civil Service, having made no claim, as I understand, as to the interpretation of the word, and asking that it should be added to their pension, the emolument was determined as part of the interpretation of the Act. Then the Whitley Council agreed that 75 per cent—they were very generous in my estimation in allowing 25 per cent. to be knocked off—should be the basis for pension. Having agreed to it we again find ourselves in the position of having to support the Government because we believe in Whitley Councils and are desirous that whatever decisions they come to should be carried out in the interests of all parties concerned. This is not a mere question of cutting down expenditure. It is a question of dealing honourably with people with whom you have entered into obligations, and of fulfilling duties to those people which you have undertaken. The civil servant in this particular instance is in the position of only receiving what is his just right under the Statute. Again I must impress upon the House that what the civil servants are receiving in addition, as the result of a war bonus, is not equal to the increased cost of living at present, and probably not for many a long day will the cost of living fall to that extent that those who have received a pension will be reaping anything on the increased cost of living as compared with the increased pension. Therefore, if there were any doubt as to the attitude of the Labour party on the last occasion, I being one who went into the Lobby in support of the Government, there will be no need to
have any doubt on this occasion. We wish to observe the agreement which we think the Government are bound to carry out.

Sir G. COLLINS: Two or three hon. Members have argued that, as the Whitley Council has inquired into this matter and come to some agreement, the House of Commons should therefore support their decision. I submit that if there be one subject which the House of Commons should examine and determine for itself, it is the decisions of the Whitley Council. To-day it is the custom of Departments to endeavour to influence the House of Commons. The Vote this evening will show, I think, that the House of Commons once again is going to reassert itself and take charge of this important matter. The Financial Secretary endeavoured to raise sympathy in all quarters of the House by his references to the case of postmen who to-day are receiving 88s. and will receive a pension under the present scheme of 38s. It is easy to raise the sympathy of hon. Members it is shared in all quarters. But the point is: is it fair to-day, when the War bonuses which my constituents and the constituents of every hon. Member receives are being reduced radically, that the Government should choose to standardise for all time the War bonus which the taxpayers are paying? There can be no compromise on such a simple matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), whose attitude on this matter is very simple and clear, presses upon the attention of the House the fact that the War bonus was granted for a specific and temporary purpose and that when men come to retire their pensions should not be based upon the amount which they have received, but that the question should be reviewed as the cost of living falls. One cannot say what the cost of living will be three of four years hence. It may well be only 25 per cent, above pre-War level. The value of money is falling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rising!"] The price of commodities is falling, the rate of interest is falling, and this will tend to lower the price of goods which will directly affect the cost of living. Every hon. Member in every part of the House is anxious to see large pensions paid to the civil servants, but is it right for our sympathies, when they are aroused, to allow us to create a grave act of injustice? The Financial
Secretary endeavoured to make light of the amount involved. Several hon. Members have already reminded the House that it is a considerable sum—nearly £500,000. It may be a small matter to the Government, but if they will go into the unemployment districts and hear the complaints of men who consider that they are receiving insufficient amount for unemployment benefit, and compare that with the generous regard under the present scheme for the civil servants who are receiving their pensions, I think that the Government will take up a different attitude in the matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles reminded the House that civil servants who are to-day about to draw a pension of £660 in pre-War days would have drawn a pension of £423. The facts are not disputed. The Financial Secretary gave some figures to the House. His main figure was this, that the civil servant whose pension to-day under the present scheme is £688 would have had under the old scheme £538, which is a permanent increase of 25 per cent. The Government may think that that is not unfair to the general body of taxpayers, but in these days to place upon the taxpayers, whose burden is so heavy, such a burden as this is unfair. I have endeavoured to find the reason which prompts the action of the Government in this matter. It is a policy of largesse. They pour out public money to public servants in every Department. It now dawns on me where the Government have adopted this policy. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the size of our National Debt is immaterial. An internal debt, whether large or small, is simply the transfer of money from one pocket to another. Therefore the size of our national expenditure is immaterial—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going wide of the question which is under debate.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am trying to probe the mind of the Government from their action in this matter. I submit-and this is a proposition which is supported by hon. Members in all quarters of the House—that to place this burden upon the taxpayer is an unsound and extravagant proposal.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before this discussion goes further, I think it incumbent on me to remind the House of Standing Order No. 19, which is too often forgotten. It says that Mr. Speaker, after having called the attention of the House to the conduct of a Member who persists in the repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members, may direct him to discontinue his speech.

Mr. G. BARNES: I shall endeavour, in the very few words I have to say, to keep within Mr. Speaker's ruling. I have not heard this Debate, except for the last 40 minutes or so, and I had no intention of taking part in it but for the extraordinary arguments which I heard addressed to the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and by my old colleague the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young). The hon. Member adduced what seemed to me extraordinary arguments, and I was sorry to hear him putting up those arguments on behalf of my old colleagues of the Labour party. I am always sorry to vote against them, and sorry to speak against them, but I do so under a strong sense of duty. We are told that this House has to endorse an agreement made outside because civil servants have a right to benefit under that agreement. What authority has the right to deprive this House of one of its great functions, that of looking after the expenditure of the country? For my part, I decline to be bound by any such arrangement. I go further, and I say that I decline to be bound by an agreement of this kind entered into by two parties, both of whom will benefit under it. I do not recognise that as binding on the nation. We are told, forsooth, that the Whitley Councils are above Parliament. I do not admit that. But when it comes to seeking to bind Parliament by a Whitley Council consisting of civil servants on both sides, then it seems to me you are reducing these councils to an absurdity.
For my part I am going to assert my right as a Member of the House to look at this matter on its merits. My hon. Friend and old colleague (Mr. R. Young) has told us about the argument as to the cost of living being so much and so on. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman
who has last spoken, that it is absurd. These pensions are to last a long time. Pensioners live a long time. One died some months ago at the age of 98 and that gentleman had drawn from the country something like half-a-million of money. I remember another one died within the last few years in Lancashire, at Grange-over-Sands, who had been 30 or 40 years living on the public Exchequer We should very carefully see to it, that we do not grant pensions based upon a temporary cost of living. How does the society of my hon. Friend and the society to which I have the honour to belong, deal with these matters? Do they give, pensions and allowances based upon the cost of living at the present time, and assume it is going to last for all time? Not at all. He knows as well as I do, that at this very moment tens of thou sands of his fellow-members and my fellow-members are walking the streets of every industrial centre, looking for work and unable to find it. What do they get? Do they get aliment based upon the increased cost of living? Not a single halfpenny. They get according to what the funds can stand, to which they have to look all their working lives I am going to apply exactly the same principle here. I do not blame the society for not increasing the benefit at the present time, because those who guide the destinies of the society know perfectly well that the funds will not stand it. Will the country's funds stand these constant inroads? After all, what are civil servants that they should be regarded as sacrosanct. I am sick and tired of public servants applying pressure to the Members of this House and getting what they are not entitled to. Therefore I am going to vote for the Amendment, and, in so doing, I think I shall be voting, not only in the interests of my constituents, but in the interests of the large numbers of men now out of work—who will have to contribute, by their rates and taxes, to the fund from which these pensions may come—and in the interests of the community as a whole.

Mr. H. YOUNG: I feel I can save some time in regard to some matters of controversy by making a further explanation and an offer of what it, may be possible to do in order to meet the strongly expressed opinion of the House.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Perhaps the House will wait to hear the terms of what I have to lay before them, and I hope they will consider it very carefully. May I say, first of all, that this Estimate deals with the actual amount of all pensions already granted, and therefore, in any case, it is quite impossible not to press upon the House the necessity of giving us this Estimate as it stands. I am convinced the House would be unwilling to make any difference or inflict any change in regard to rights which have already accrued. What I understand to be the contention advanced with great force in our previous Debate, and also in this Debate, is that this system should not continue for the future, and that we should be prepared now to make some difference in it. That is the direction in which I think much can be done in order to meet the markedly expressed view of the House. It is clear, I think, that the main criticism, and that which is most strongly advanced—and I have had an opportunity of hearing and appreciating the points of different speakers—is that permanent pensions should not be unrelated to a subsequent fall in the cost of living. I have already given the reasons for what was done originally by the Treasury, and what we did in a very rough and ready way to meet the situation. I recognise the force of the contention which has been advanced that it does not adequately meet the case, and that it does leave future pensions insufficiently related to arty actual decrease in the cost of living.
I think that is really what is at the bottom of the criticism and that the House desires to see the pensions better related to the actual cost of living. What I will undertake to do is this: I will undertake, before any further Estimate is introduced to the House for pensions, to investigate the possibility of a scheme—we cannot put it too simply—for making pensions vary with the cost of living, by periodical reassessments. Without investigating the matter I can say little more than that. I am myself confident that we can find and work such a scheme, and I will ask the House for the present to allow me to leave it in that rather general way. I think the words I have given cover the real point in regard to which it is possible to meet the desires of the House. We shall investigate the possibility of a
scheme for making pensions vary with the cost of living by periodical reassessment. [HON. MEMBERS: Both ways."] I should think so. The variations must be both ways. As I say, I am myself confident we can find and work such a scheme to be introduced before the next Estimate is laid before the House.

Sir F. YOUNG: If the bonus forms the statutory basis for pension rights, how is it possible for the Government to vary it. after the officer has retired from service?

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. Member must not have followed my argument on the subject, but, of course, it is a very technical matter. We never contended that it was possible to make public pensions vary with the cost of living from time to time. What we did say was that a man was entitled to a pension on the bonus at the time. We were, however, quite entitled to take into account the fact that the cost of living might go down. That is what we are trying to do in a rough and ready way. There can be no doubt there is no legal bar by agreement against our introducing some such scheme as I have mentioned.

Viscount WOLMER: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "accrued rights"? Does he mean that this is money actually acquired by members of the Civil Service who have retired and have taken their pensions on the understanding it would be assessed on that basis?

Mr. YOUNG: That is so.

Lord R. CECIL: May I suggest that it is very difficult to follow at a moment's notice a proposal of this kind and see exactly if it will meet the views which have been expressed in the House and which I personally share? Would it not be possible to withdraw this Estimate and bring it up later? Before the House actually parts with its control over the matter, we should be quite sure we are really getting something effective. I am not suggesting, of course, that there is any want of confidence in the absolute good faith of the hon. Gentleman, but the matter is a complicated one and raises a very important question of principle, and it would be a great pity if we passed this Estimate and then found that the offer of the hon. Gentleman really did not meet the views of the House as expressed in this Debate. It might well
be that the next occasion on which the matter would come up would be upon an Estimate coming under the Guillotine, which we would have no opportunity of discussing. If the hon. Gentleman can make some offer, either by way of withdrawing the Estimate or in some other way to meet this point, I should be very grateful to him. If not, of course, it will be open to us to move to adjourn the Debate.

Mr. YOUNG: I do not think the request of the Noble Lord is very reasonable, and I hope it will not be pressed. It will be remembered that our time-table for financial business is a very short one, extending only to the end of this month. Therefore, the House will understand that, as far as I am referring to the question of time and the business of the House, I am not merely making a point of punctilio or a point of no importance in asking the House to give us this Vote on the present occasion.

Lord R. CECIL: Why is it so urgent?

Mr. YOUNG: We must get the Consolidated Fund Bill before the end of the month.

Lord R. CECIL: Why is this Vote so urgent?

Mr. YOUNG: Because it is one of the large Votes. In these circumstances, I would point out to the House that there really can be no apprehension in view of the undertaking I have given. I quite realise the difficulty of following a complicated matter on the spur of the moment, but I would submit two considerations. In the first place, there is, I believe—subject to the bigger point—no real contention against the point that, in the case of the pensioners who have already got their money, that money must be voted for them, at any rate this year, on the ground that their rights have absolutely accrued for this year, and the House will scarcely refuse them the money for this year.[HON. MEMBERS>: "Why not?"] Need I argue that point? That is all that is contained in this Estimate. In the second place, I put it quite generally that, for the future, we shall introduce a scheme for making pensions vary with the cost of living by periodical reassessment. The Noble Lord has been good enough to.say he does not doubt the bonâ fides of my intention in giving that assurance.
It is a simple one, and I think the House need have no apprehensions but that it will be possible to fulfil it.

7.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With the permission of the House, I wish to make this suggestion to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a very complicated matter as he has said, and I am quite certain that a very large number of hon. Members do not fully grasp the offer which he has made. I have had a better opportunity of following the Debate than perhaps most hon. Members, and there are at least two points that I should like cleared up. What I suggest is that the hon. Gentleman should postpone this discussion and take the Vote to-morrow night. Let us have an opportunity of seeing exactly what he means, and I can assure him, so far as I can speak for those who are associated with me, and perhaps there are more than that number who are in agreement with me on the general discussion to-day, that we would, in no delaying sense, discuss the matter. If we could have an opportunity of seeing in the OFFICIAL REPORT what the hon. Gentleman has said to-night, and if ho would draw up and place in the Vote Office to-morrow a wider memorandum, I think he would get his Vote to-morrow night without any discussion at all, on the understanding, of course, of the suggestion which he has made, which goes a long way, I admit, to meet the criticisms which we have advanced. I think that is the best way to treat the House of Commons, rather than that it should lose complete control to-night by passing this Vote as he has suggested. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we will treat the whole matter in no party spirit at all, but that it is the general desire that we should arrive at a clear understanding and having done that the House should let the Vote go.

Commander BELLAIRS: It is a little difficult to understand what the hon. Gentleman means. For the purpose of clearing my own mind I want to ask him one question. What does he mean by "accrued rights"? Does he refer to the pension for this year only of those who have already gone or does he refer to the pensions for all time and for all succeeding years. Secondly, does the understanding which he previously had in his
mind lapse from the moment of this declaration with regard to those who may go out to-day or to-morrow or thereafter? If he would answer those two questions he would clear my mind considerably.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have listened to every single moment of this Debate since 4 o'clock, and I must confess that to my mind the speech made by the hon. Gentleman does alter very considerably the whole question. My hon. Friend knows very well that I have been very hostile indeed to the financial proposals of the Government, and that I continually vote against them in the Lobby. I do feel, however, that whenever the Government really and sincerely show a desire to economise and to meet the wishes of this House they ought to be encouraged to do so. Personally, I agree that it would be much better to postpone this Vote until to-morrow night; but in so far as it affects my own vote, while I had intended to vote for the Amendment, yet, in view of what my hon. Friend has said to-night, I feel that I cannot vote against him. I feel that the Government ought to be encouraged in economy. I believe that my hon. Friend, who sat on these benches a little time ago, is an economist at heart, and that he is doing his best. On the strength of what he has said, I, so far as this actual Vote is concerned, shall feel obliged to vote for the Government.

Captain W. BENN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
In view of what has taken place and of the change of attitude, commendable as we think it, of the hon. Gentleman, I move the Adjournment in the interests of the convenience of all, and in order to give us an opportunity of considering the proposals that he makes.

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am sure the House will realise how important it is to get these Supplementary Estimates. It is absolutely essential that this particular Supplementary Estimate should get through the Report Stage, so that it may be added to the Consolidated Fund Bill, of which it is necessary to take the Second Reading on Thursday. I want to meet the wishes of the House, and if I can get an understanding across the Table that this Vote will be taken as the first Order to-morrow, together with the-Report Stage of the other Supplementary
Estimate—Customs Excise—I should then be willing to meet the wishes of the House that there should be an Adjournment of this Debate. I hope, however, in view of what has already been said, that the House will not use too much of the time to-morrow, because we have already given a considerable amount of time to this Estimate.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has met the general sense of the House very fairly. I say, as far as I can pledge anybody, that the Debate to-morrow will be short and business-like, and I hope that there will be no difficulty whatever in arriving at a general agreement.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow (Wednesday).

REPORT [20th February].

Resolutions reported.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS III.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,474,370, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary, including certain extra-statutory pensions."

CLASS VI.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for making good certain sums written off from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund, together with certain sums due in respect of advances in Northern Ireland."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £265,024, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for making good certain Irish Land Purchase Annuities."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs and Excise Department."

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HODGE: This is the Report stage of one of the larger Votes dealing with Ireland, which we discussed yesterday, and there are a number of questions left unanswered by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant on that occasion. There was a point relevant to the discussion, which we have just finished, dealing with the pension of the Inspector-General. I remember that that particular Inspector-General was Sir Thomas Smith. There is one question with regard to that which requires some elucidation. On page 95 of the original Estimate, there is a sum of £1,800 put down for. 1921–22, as against £1,983 for the previous year, for the salary of the Inspector-General. If you look at the bottom of the page, you will find that that payment is starred, and opposite the star you read that the post, of Inspector-General is vacant. In the addition, on page 95, there is taken into account in the total of £32,546 this sum of £1,800. I believe that it applies to another distinguished officer who was, I think, retired from the Service—Sir Joseph Byrne. I want to know whether this sum of £1,800, which is taken in the original Estimate for this officer, ought not now to appear under an Appropriation-in-Aid? There are a number of other matters I had intended to raise had the previous discussion not collapsed. I have not the particular references with me, however, and I will not unduly raise any further Debate. I think we are entitled to know where that £1,800 has disappeared, because this officer, who was retired, is not drawing salary. If that is so, this obviously ought to have been under an Appropriation-in-Aid, and to have appeared as a reduction of this Supplementary Estimate.

Major M. WOOD: I should like to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to several items in this Estimate which do not seem to me to be clear. Under subhead G, we find the sum of £280,550 for arms, ammunition and accoutrements for additional men; and also additional machine-guns and ammunition. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us from whom he got those machine-guns and what has been done with them. I have understood that the end of the War found us in possession of enormous quantities of all kinds of arms and am-
munition which we did not require. We were told that we sent a great number of arms to Russia because they were of no value. Why did we not keep them for the use of the troops in Ireland? If we did so, did we pay this £280,000 to the Disposal Board? If that was the case it gives a different complexion to the whole Estimate, and we ought to know it. Several of the subheads mentioned are also for sums which seem to have been incurred in 1920. Take, for instance, subhead F—clothing. This is an "increase in the numbers of the Force and provision for uniform for men sent out in the previous year without their full complement "—that is 1920. We were told at the beginning of the consideration of this Estimate that the original Estimate was framed in December, 1920. I think I am right in saying that since that original Estimate was proposed there was a previous Supplementary Estimate. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why this expenditure of money, which was incurred in 1920, was not put in that previous Estimate, and why it only appears now at the end of this financial year? Under almost every one of these subheads we are not given the information necessary to enable us to understand them. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with subhead M, prefaced his explanation by saying he would divide it into several heads in order to enable us to understand it. If it was necessary to do that when he was speaking here, it should have been necessary to do it when he published this Estimate, because we cannot understand it as it is put down here.
My last point is in regard to the Inspector-General, to which reference has already been made. This Inspector-General retired in December, 1920, and I understand that as he incurred more than the normal nerve strain the Government think that he is entitled to a higher Pension. Does the Chief Secretary not consider that the inspectors-general who succeeded Sir Thomas Smith have deserved even more than Sir Thomas Smith? Is this increased pension peculiar to Sir Thomas Smith or is it to be given to all those who succeed him? There is a great deal more that I would wish to refer to on these Estimates, but the matter has come before us so suddenly that I am not now prepared to deal with other points as I had intended.

Sir G. COLLINS: In this Estimate there are large sums for pensions and gratuities. Will the decision of the Government on the last Supplementary Estimate be applied in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary or will there be one system applied to men who retire from the Royal Irish Constabulary and another system applied to civil servants who retire in this country? Last night I asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland one or two questions in regard to certain large sums of money. The right hon. Gentleman had many questions put to him, and I do not complain that he did not answer the specific points I raised. Did his Department buy small arms or additional machine guns or ammunition during the past 12 months? There are large quantities of these munitions of war in the possession of the War Office, and it seems to me unnecessary that the State should incur further liabilities which could be avoided by co-operation between the War Office and the Irish Office. We know that the Disposal Board are disposing of motor vehicles, tyres and accessories. Was the Irish Office at the same time buying these articles from contractors?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am very sorry that the hon. Member who has just spoken was not in the House last night when I tried to answer the questions he has raised Reference has been made to pensions and gratuities. There is no bonus in connection with police pay and there can therefore be no pension based on bonuses, to the police.

Sir G. COLLINS: I understood from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when we were on the last Supplementary Estimate, that pensions were to be based on or influenced by the cost of living. If that be the correct interpretation of his words, I wish to know whether the pensions granted to these individuals will also be based on the cost of living?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was not present during the whole of the debate on the last Supplementary Estimate, but I understood that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was dealing with pension on bonuses. No one knows better than the hon. Member that, whatever the procedure laid down by the Treasury, it must apply to all public servants, but as the Irish police have no bonus the question
of pensions on bonuses does not arise in Ireland. I am asked whether we purchased arms of the War Office. We did.

Sir G. COLLINS: Did the Irish Office purchase from contractors or from the War Office as a transfer from one Department to another? Were further liabilities incurred?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Arms and ammunition were purchased from the War Office, and throughout the recent history of Ireland there has been the most intimate co-operation between the Army and the War Office on the one side, and the police and the Irish Office on the other side for the obvious reason that the objective was the same and similar instruments of warfare were required. As far as possible motors were bought from surplus stores, but the hon. Member will realise that when you come to certain kinds of armoured cars for the protection of police and military, they were not so obtainable, and had to be purchased. Most of them were made at Woolwich. Every regard has been paid to economy, and the Irish Office never went far afield to purchase stores when those stores were in stock. I am glad to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) on the points he raised. The hon. and gallant Member criticised the form of the Estimates. That is a prerogative of the Treasury, and I am not responsible. The pension payable to Inspectors General who may follow Sir Thomas Smith does not arise, at any rate at the moment, because there is no succeeding Inspector-General to Sir Thomas Smith. It was considered a better administrative policy to engage a Chief of Police for all police forces in Ireland, instead of filling the position of Inspector-General. The hon. and gallant Member also criticised me because certain items were not included in a Supplementary Estimate last year. I am glad to say that there were no Supplementary Estimates last year in which these particular items could have been included.

Captain W. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that these things were purchased in previous financial years and have been paid for in the Estimates of this Financial Year?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Does the hon. and gallant Member refer to the purchase of arms?

Captain BENN: I refer to the same matters as were referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think he was referring to the purchase of arms.

Major M. WOOD: And clothing.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There was no Supplementary Estimate last year in which that item could have been included. As to the purchase of arms, I explained it in the greatest detail yesterday. In 1920–21 the War Department sold to the Royal Irish Constabulary arms and ammunition to the value of £350,000, but only £170,000 was paid for 1920–21, because the accounts were not cleared in time for payment to be made. I am now compelled to ask the House for the balance of £180,000 and also additional new money making a total of £280,550 for arms, ammunition, accoutrements, and so on. A question has been raised in reference to the original Estimate and the payment of the Inspector-General. I think the House is well aware that this refers to the salary of Sir Joseph Byrne, who was Inspector-General before my appointment as Chief Secretary and is still paid by the Government the salary of an Inspector-General pending further reappointment.

Mr. HOGGE: He is drawing money?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: He is drawing the money.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does that arise on this Supplementary Estimate?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, it does not.

Mr. HOGGE: The point I made was that it would form an Appropriation-in-Aid on this Estimate if it had not been spent. The figure is £1,800, and the post is vacant. The money is taken as spent in the original Estimate. Obviously it ought to appear as an Appropriation-in-Aid.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how it affects this Vote. The fact that certain things are not there would not allow any Debate on policy to arise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Resolution be now adjourned."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolution to be further considered To-morrow (Wednesday).

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS II.

BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for meeting the. Deficiency of Income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914."

Sir F. BANBURY: This is a small Vote, but I should like some information with regard to Item G, "Stationery and Printing." The original Estimate was £6,000, and the revised Estimate is £15,000, being an increase of £9,000, or nearly treble, and I should like to know why it is that there should have been this enormous increase, especially as I understand that stationery and printing, owing to the decline in the cost of materials and reductions in wages, should have cost less during the last three or four months than they did before. The fees under the Bankruptcy Act have also increased considerably, and I presume that that means that a great many more people have become bankrupt. That is a matter which requires the attention of the Government, in view of the heavy taxation which they are asking the community to pay.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I will do my best to satisfy my right hon. Friend, but first I would explain that this is a token Vote of £10, and the fact is that the extra expenditure required is £12,720, whereas the extra Appropriations-in-Aid to deduct are £12,710. That is entirely satisfactory from the taxpayers' point of view, but it is unsatisfactory owing to the fact that it indicates that the only business that has flourished in the country in the last year has been the bankruptcy business, but I should add that this is not a matter in which this country is
singular, for the same phenomenon is found in practically every other great industrial country throughout the world. The increase in Item G is practically entirely due to the general increase in the bankruptcy business. The local printing rates are considerably increased over what they were before the War—an increase, I believe, of 200 or 300 per cent.—but the increase here is practically entirely due to the increased amount of work. The actual number of receiving orders in 1920 was 1,594 and in 1921 3,495.

Mr. HOGGE: We cannot allow this Vote to pass without drawing attention to the fact that the Government, at any rate, have been successful in driving a great many people into bankruptcy. The figures which the hon. Member has just given for 1920 and 1921 show that there has been an increase of over 100 per cent., and there must be something very materially wrong in the state of affairs which compels these people to seek refuge in the Bankruptcy Court. The only thing we can congratulate the Government upon is the success of this particular Department, and I think that is a melancholy satisfaction to which my hon. Friend is entitled. I do not think the explanation he has given in regard to stationery is quite satisfactory. The cost has more than doubled, but the number of bankruptcies has not risen in anything like that ratio, and there should be some explanation of that difference. I know that both printing and the price of paper have been, and remain, high, but they have come down very considerably now, and if we are to accept the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that the business has doubled, I think an increase of £9,000 on the original Estimate of £6,000 shows that there must be some leakage somewhere.

Major M. WOOD: I hope the Committee will compare Item D with Item G. The former shows that the original Estimate of receiving orders was 600, but the actual numbers will not fall far short of 1,000; that is to say, there has been an increase under that Subhead of something like 40 per cent., but the increase under Subhead G is 150 per cent. The point that we want to know is why there is such a great difference between the increases under Item G and the increase
under Item D, because the two seem to be interdependent. Why should the cost of printing go up so much more than the number of receiving orders, which, I should have expected, would have determined the printing bill?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The short answer to my hon. and gallant Friend is that the receiving orders dealt with under Subhead D are not precisely the same as those under Subhead G. The former refers only to country receiving orders, whereas Subhead G covers the whole ground. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend's rapid mental calculation of an increase of l50 per cent. is quite correct. As a matter of fact, the increase in the business represents something like 120 per cent. on the actual figures, and to take a particular instance within the last year, and in the period covered by the Vote, the price of the "London Gazette" has been increased very considerably.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any steps are taken to check these Estimates at the Board of Trade? Is there any waste of stationery or postage? I see that the business here has not doubled, yet postage rates have more than doubled. In the original Estimate £1,400 was taken for portages, whereas in the revised Estimate £3,000 is taken—an addition of £1,600. That seems to show that there must be some leakage somewhere, and that the business is not conducted on an economical basis. I should, therefore, like to know what steps are taken to see that there is no waste going on.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The short reply is that this Department, among other Departments of the Board of Trade, was inquired into in the last few weeks by the Geddes Committee, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will turn to the Geddes Report he will see that, whatever may be said in that Report of other Departments, with regard to this particular Department the Committee offer the remark that they have no observation to make. Therefore, so far as any complaint of the nature which he has indicated is concerned, I think he may take it that the Geddes Committee were satisfied

Question put, and agreed to.

BOARDTRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £601,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War and Grants in Aid."

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Unlike the Vote which the Committee has just passed, I think this is a matter which deserves some statement from the Minister in charge. I am not very fond of statements from the Treasury Bench in opening Estimates. I have too much of the old Adam of opposition perhaps left in me, because I think it is a good general rule that the time of the Estimates is the time for the Opposition and not for the Government. Still, I think it is desirable that I should try and do what I can to facilitate discussion on this Estimate by putting the Committee, so far as I can do so, in possession of the relevant facts. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that would seem to be a convenient and proper course, because, although this is not in technical form a new service—and indeed it has already been to some small extent the subject of discussion in the House—there has not been any occasion to go very far into the subjects represented in this Vote. Although a statement by way of opening would perhaps be more appropriate to the main Estimate than to a Supplementary Estimate., I think under all the circumstances it would be more convenient that I should say what I can now, and therefore I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will see your way perhaps to allow a little more latitude in the discussion of this Vote than would ordinarily be the case on a Supplementary Estimate, of course on the understanding that, unless there are some new facts between now and the presentation of the main Estimates; I should not desire on that occasion to go into the question again at any great length.
If that be the view of the Committee, I will try as shortly as I can—I am afraid I shall have to make some little demands on the Committee—to put the facts before them. The Committee will appreciate that this is an Estimate for
£601,200, being the estimated balance of the expenditure over revenue in respect of certain contracts entered into between His Majesty's Government and the Australian Zinc Producers Proprietary Association, Limited, a body which comprises practically all the producing companies of this class of mining product in Australia, and which was founded at the instance of, and in consequence of, negotiations with the Australian Federal Government. The questions to which I want to address myself are shortly these: What is the present financial position? What are the future prospects? What is the reaction of the contracts, if any, on the zinc mining industry of this country? How did the contracts come to be made, and why were they made? I think the Committee will appreciate that these are the salient questions, and I will try as far as I can to give the Committee some information with regard to them.
Let me first answer, by way of anticipation, what I think would be a very natural inquiry for any Member of the Committee to address to the Government with regard to this particular Estimate. If I were seeing the Estimate for the first time, and criticising it, I should certainly say to the Government, "Why is there a Supplementary Estimate at all? Why was not this foreseen and provided for in the main Estimate?" At first sight, I am free to confess that seems quite unanswerable, but, like many other questions of a similar nature, it really does admit of a very simple answer when the facts are known, and the facts are these. The Committee will appreciate that these are contracts to take and pay for certain mining products produced in Australia. At the time when the main Estimate was presented, there had been in Australia for many months a very bitter industrial dispute, which had resulted in the complete cessation of all production in this particular industry. It was, therefore, quite impossible at the time the Estimate was prepared and presented to say whether production was going to be resumed at all during the financial year, or, if resumed, at what date it was going to be resumed. It was, therefore, quite impossible to suggest to Parliament any particular sum by way of a Vote under this particular head. Production has since been resumed, and it has accordingly become necessary to ask, as we are now
asking, Parliament for the necessary Supplementary Estimate for the carrying out and the fulfilment of these particular contracts.
Let me come to the question of what are the contracts. But, before I arrive at that point, perhaps I may be allowed to say one word about the general position of the world's zinc industry. I hope the Committee will not think I am attempting to lecture on this point. I am not, and I am only saying what I propose to say on the general position, because I have found from experience, when I had to go into these things, that you could not attempt to deal with the details of the particular problem until you had a sort of general idea in your head. Therefore, perhaps I may be excused if I say something about the general position. Zinc made from spelter, which is derived from crude ore, after a process of concentration, is in peace time normally used for various processes in the galvanising trades, and in the manufacture of brass, and the British pre-War consumption of spelter was 200,000 tons a year. Of that 200,000 tons, 55,000 tons were actually produced by a process of smelting in this country, and of that 55,000 tons so produced here, only a minute fraction came from ore mined in British mines. Very little came from Australian-mined ore. It was practically all derived from ore imported from Southern Europe. That accounted for 55,000 tons out of our total spelter requirements of 200,000 tons. The balance of 145,000 tons came almost entirely from Germany and from Belgium, and the greater part of the Belgian production, or, at all events, a substantial part of the Belgian production, was under the control of German financial interests. Those German interests derived the ore, from which they smelted the spelter, which they subsequently exported from Germany and Belgium, from Australia, and they derived it by virtue of a series of long-term contracts, which they had in Australia, under which they had acquired practically the whole of the Australian output.
So much for the position on this side of the Atlantic. On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States was, and is still, a very large, and always has been a very large, producer of spelter, but America really enters very little into the picture, because the American production
was entirely derived from American domestic ores, and, when produced, very little of that production was afterwards exported at all from that country, and I think I am right in saying that none of it was ever sold in the European market. The total production and consumption for the world's requirements in 1913 was 977,000 tons. With that in mind, I would invite the attention of the Committee to the contracts themselves. I need not go into the technical details. The Committee will find that the essential facts of the contracts have already been admirably summarised in the Geddes Committee's Second Report. It is on page 10, paragraph 6:
An agreement was concluded in 1917 as regards concentrates and speller with the Zinc Producers' Proprietary Association (Limited), Australia. This agreement operates until the 30th June, 1930, and is divided into three periods as under:

1. From the 1st January, 1918, to the 30th June, 1921.
2. From the 1st July, 1921, to the 30th June, 1925.
3. From the 1st July, 1925, to the 30th June, 1930.

The annual quantity of concentrates the Government may be required to take is fixed by the agreement at 250,000 tons per annum in the first period, and 300,000 tons per annum for the second and third periods. The prices are fixed for the first two periods, and a formula laid down for regulating prices in the third period. There is also an agreement giving the Zinc Producers' Association the right to 'put' 45,000 tons of spelter annually with the Government at ruling market price.
That, as I say, summarises the essential facts, with one significant exception. The Committee will see that the Geddes Report makes no mention either of purchase or of selling prices, and I am going to ask the Committee, for reasons which I will give, and which, I think, on reflection, will be obvious, to allow me, while giving them all the information I can, to practise similar reticence with regard to the purchase and sale figures. It has been my fortune to have, I suppose, during the past few years, as much to do, and probably more to do, with the conduct of Government trading than possibly any other single individual, and I say frankly and at once that the more Government trading I have had to conduct, the more I dislike Government trading. In saying that, I must not be thought to be casting any reflection—nothing is further from my mind—upon
the position of the Civil Service. Regarding the civil servant as a trader, the marvel to me always is, not that he does not do it better than he does, but that, with all his handicaps, he does so well. It is sometimes said: "Oh, the civil servant in Government trading is careless, because it is not his own money he is handling." I think that is a very undeserved imputation on the Civil Service.

Major BARNES: Is the hon. Member's point that the civil servant made this original agreement?

8.0 P. M.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No. My point is this. The real trouble about Government trading is not that the civil servant is careless, but that the civil servant gets to be too careful. Of all the qualities that make for success in business, certainly amongst some of the foremost are intelligence and knowledge to be able to compute the size of commercial risks, courage to take commercial risks, and promptitude to decide when you ought to take them. The first of these qualities is the derivative of experience which the civil servant, in the nature of things, cannot have. It is quite true he can and does call for expert aid, and he does have expert aid given of the very best probably, and freely-given by public spirited men. But second-hand knowledge can never be a substitute for first-hand knowledge. In regard to the second and third of these qualities, the very fact that a man is handling not his own money in his own business, but somebody elses money, makes him slower than otherwise he would be to take risks. In respect to promptitude it is certainly not stimulated by the tradition and the routine of the public service. After a Departmental decision has been taken it has to be submitted to the review and approval of a very vigilant but very overworked Treasury, and time—and precious time—is lost in doing that. That is one real handicap—and the great handicap in Government trading, and it is enough in all conscience—but if to that handicap there is to be super-added an additional handicap, if the unfortunate individual who has got to undertake that trading—and in regard to this particular instance so long as these contracts exist he is forced to go on in Government trading—if in addition to the handicap
to which I have referred he is also compelled to deal with buyers who have been made aware not only of the price at which he bought, but at which he has to sell—I tell the Committee quite frankly that even an approximation to the business results becomes impossible. That being so, I hope the Committee will allow me to practice some reticence in regard to the purchase and sale of these things.
Respecting the stock position, I can give that substantially up to date, and literally within the last few hours, and it is as follows:—Concentrates and slimes in hand at the moment, 786,092 tons, and of spelter 2,286 tons. This is not a very satisfactory stock to have to hold with the world's markets in their present position, because without going any further into the question of purchase and sales prices I can say this: At the present level of world prices they represent prices below those in which the stock stands in the Government books. The actual results of the profit and loss trading account up to date have not been quite so bad as perhaps the Committee might be at first sight led to fear. I am dealing with round figures because, of course, trading accounts are made up year by year to 31st March; therefore I can only deal more or less with round figures. Roughly speaking, the losses on concentrates up to the present date have been £500,000, and the losses on spelter have been £2,200. These figures are not quite so bad as they appear, because, following the practice, which I think is right, the general rule is—though it cannot always be followed—the Trading Accounts and the Profit and Loss Account ought to carry charges—where there are charges—for insurance and for interest on the money advanced. Taking into account those charges, there is a counter-figure in the case of the concentrates against the £500,000 gross loss of £350,000 increase in the Insurance Account, thus reducing the actual outlay to £150,000. In the case of the spelter, with the £2,200 loss, there is a counter-entry of £7,800 on the Interest Account, making a small balance on the right side of £4,700. So much in regard to the present.
What about the future? Frankly, in this matter I am not an optimist. Nobody would be with a stock of this sort, and the world's market in its present condition and the commitments and the
handicap as I have stated. But in view of the extract and summary which I have read from the Geddes Report anybody who said he was an optimistic in that position would be a fool, but pessimism, I am quite sure, would be as bad. I do not think the position is quite so bad as the Geddes Report suggests. I think that Report is unduly black. I quote these words:
The extent of the loss cannot at present be estimated—
that is quite clear—
but it is almost certain to run into several millions.
That may or may not turn out to be the case. No man can say at the present moment; but I do say, with some feeling—and I hope the Committee will sympathise with that feeling—that it is a little hard on the unfortunate hawker who is pushing his barrow up and down the world in an attempt to sell his wares to have it proclaimed that these things are not all that they might be. It does make the situation a little difficult. The Geddes Report, I think, paints the prospect in little darker colours than it deserves, and I will tell the Committee why I think so. I told the Committee a short time ago that the world's production and consumption of spelter in 1913 was 977,000 tons. The production last year, as near as I can estimate, was 600,000 tons. Never since the Armistice has the production been over 700,000 tons, or at all events, not substantially lower. If you set those figures against the annual pre-War requirements of 977,000 tons the Committee will see that there does appear to be a certain hole to be filled up, and there does appear to be scope for a rise in demand on prices. That is why I say I think there is a prospect of appreciation; but beyond that, as I say, any forecast as to the future must be a pure matter of speculation.
Let me now come to a point which I know some hon. Members have very much at heart, and the effect, if any, that these contracts have in regard to the general position of the zinc industry in this country. I should like to say at once on that that I have the greatest sympathy and with the industry, but when my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) suggests, as he suggested the other day during the Debate on the Address—if I understood him
aright—that the involved state of the industry, and perhaps its total collapse, is due to the existence of these Australian contracts, I feel bound to try and give the Committee some reasons why that is not a fair deduction to be drawn. I am afraid what I am going to say may sound, on the face of it, rather brutal, but I hope my hon. Friend will not think that what. I say is from any lack of sympathy on my part. What I am trying to do is to state facts. It is no use shutting our eyes to these facts. The facts are these: I told the Committee at the outset of my observations that the spelter made from ores formed only a very minute fraction of the total amount of zinc ores raised in Great Britain in 1913. This was 17,300 tons. Of that 11,200 tons were raised by a Belgian company and exported for their own purposes to Belgium. Therefore that did not enter into the total of British requirements. That leaves 6,100 tons or ore, which is really equivalent to something a little over 2,000 tons of spelter produced from ore mined in Great Britain—2,000 tons against a total British requirement of 200,000 tons.

Mr. WIGNALL: How many tons of lead from the same mines?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not want to be led into a controversy, and perhaps my hon. Friend will make his point later when I will do my best to reply, or my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I am now dealing with the statement made as to the production from British ores of spelter. I was saying it was only a minute fraction, in point of fact, it was a hundredth part of the total. That production was 6,100 tons, and it came from 20 different mines. The Committee will therefore see that production in this country is very scanty. In consequence the ore is not to be expected to be in form, in character, or composition as it might be; that was always one of the great troubles which the mining industry in zinc had to contend against before the War in dealing with its contracts here.
The real trouble at the present moment is that the industry cannot afford to produce ore in this country at the present level of world prices. We are asked under these circumstances, seeing it is only a small part of British ore, "Will you not buy it? Will not the Government buy it at the Australian price "—Whatever that may
be—"and add the price of the freightage from Australia?" It was with real regret that the Government found themselves obliged to decline that particular suggestion. They had to, because in the first place the proposition was really economically unsound; in the second place—and perhaps this is worse—even if it had been sound it would not have been effective. It is unsound because—I overheard my hon. Friend opposite murmur the suggestion and it was precisely the point to which I was coming—it would be economically unsound because it would be in fact the payment of a concealed subsidy to these industries without the knowledge or without the approval of Parliament by purchasing their products which we do not actually require. It would not only be unsound, but it would be ineffective, because on the figures submitted to us, at the present cost of production, even if we were to purchase at the Australian price plus the freight, the industry in order to live would still require a further subsidy. I am afraid I must say—and I say it with great regret—that for this small struggling industry the outlook at the present level of world prices is gloomy. If the industry is to live at the present level of world's prices the House of Commons must say frankly, "We intend to pay this industry a subsidy." Unless they do that the industry cannot exist, and the existence or non-existence of these Australian contracts does not alter this essential fact.
Why were these contracts made, and why were they made in the form of long term contracts? Those who have read the Geddes Report dealing with these particular transactions will have seen that these contracts date back a good number of years to what I may call the middle ages of the War. The contract of 23rd April, 1917, and subsequent contracts had their origin in discussions which took place at a very much earlier date, and the first trace I have been able to discover of reference to it was on 20th April, 1915, when the then Colonial Secretary, now Viscount Harcourt, referred in this House to discussions with the Australian Government, but they did not become really active until the summer of 1919, when negotiations were opened up with the Ministers responsible in this country. The chief Ministers of this country who dealt with these negotiations were the Colonial Secretary, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Trade, the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law), Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Runciman. Those negotiations proceeded during the summer of 1916.
I am not well informed as to the precise course of the discussion, but the outcome of it was an agreed policy, under which, before Mr. Hughes returned home, an agreement was arrived at which was the subject of a correspondence as to technical details with Australia, and it was finally concluded on 23rd April, 1917, and these, with the extension and Amendment of April, 1918, are the contracts with which we are now dealing. Although I am not informed with regard to the details of those discussions, I think we can infer enough to reply to two questions which may very legitimately be asked. In the first place, was due regard paid to the question of price, and, in the second place, was it reasonable to make a long-term contract I think the Ministers responsible could put up a good defence on both points. With regard to price, let the Committee for a moment remember that at that time prices were practically double what they are now for spelter, and it was not reasonable at that time to expect men to anticipate the enormous drop to which I have referred, and which I have illustrated by figures. If any set of Ministers could have been expected to apply commercial minds to anticipating that drop in consumption, I am certain those Gentlemen would rank very high with hon. Members in every section of the House. I do not think it was reasonable to anticipate that drop in consumption. Nobody anticipated it; in fact, every anticipation was the other way, and it was expected that you would have a larger and a sustained demand for these products after the Armistice.

Major BARNES: Who were the Ministers dealing with the contract of 23rd April, 1917?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: They were the then Colonial Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these offices being held by the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law), Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Runciman. The negotiations took place in 1916 with Mr.
Hughes. It is quite easy, I know, to find fault with what people anticipated in 1916 or 1917, but there are men who fell into precisely a similar error in 1919 and 1920. Therefore, I do not think it is altogether reasonable to say that a drop in consumption such as that that has taken place can have been fairly anticipated by those responsible for this contract, whether in 1916 or 1917. Let the Committee reflect for a moment on the history of these matters. Remember that the Australian people had realised with disgust and dismay that their little industry had fallen into the clutches of German capitalists. This is what Mr. Hughes said in the Federal House of Parliament on 10th December, 1914:
Shortly stated, the facts show beyond all question that German capital and German influence exercising a monopoly of the base metal industry of the civilised world; that this monopoly is for all practical purposes so complete as to exclude effective competition; that it covers the whole sphere of the industry, limiting output, controlling markets, determining the channels of distribution, and fixing prices;…that peace holds out no prospects satisfatory or even tolerable to British and Australian interests since it would but revive that complete domination of the industry by German influence, which insures the building up of German instead of British and Australian interests.
It is with feelings like that in their minds that the Australian Parliament cut away from this strangle-hold. Raving done that they asked us to assist them to stabilise the industry in the way we have tried to do. Was that a request we could lightly refuse? Could it lightly be refused by men who a few days before had put their hands to the Economic Resolutions at Paris? What were those Resolutions? They were:

(1)" The Allies declare themselves agreed to conserve for the Allied countries, before all others, their natural resources during the whole period of commercial, industrial, agricultural, and maritime reconstruction, and for this purpose they undertake to establish special arrangements to facilitate the interchange of these resources."
(2)" The Allies decide to take the necessary steps without delay to render themselves independent of enemy countries in so far as regards raw materials and manufactured articles essential to the normal development of their economic activities."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who drafted these Resolutions?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We have it on the authority of the right hon.
Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) that the Resolutions were drafted by Mr. Runciman in July, 1915. These contracts are a legacy to the present administration. Under the old Roman law we might have got over the difficulty by renouncing the administration of them, but unfortunately we cannot do so; we can only promise the House that we will do all we can with such commercial aid as we can obtain, to produce the best results for the British Exchequer. That promise, so far as I am concerned, and so far as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is concerned, we gladly and freely give to the Committee.

Sir W. PEARCE: The Minister has correctly described the situation which induced the Government to enter into these contracts, and it is true that the basis of the industry was held by the Germans up to the time of the War. We persuaded the Australian Government to get rid of their contracts with the Germans, and the Government must have felt some obligation to help the Australians in a very difficult position. But I do not remember that the House was ever advised that such a large transaction was going through. I dare say many things happened during the War, but for a long contract of 13 years to be entered into without the House of Commons being consulted is an extra-ordinary proposition. I believe officials of the Board of Trade and other Departments who had part in the negotiations had warning signals held out to them. There was a Departmental Committee sitting in 1916–17, to which these contracts had to be referred. I was a member of that Committee, and I remember full well that the Government officials had pointed out to them the extra-ordinary consequences that these contracts might carry, and the difficulty of operating with such very large quantities of raw material. I believe it was considered possible for the raw material to be brought to this country and worked here, and that may have been part of the original scheme. I hope that whatever trouble the Government may be in now, they will not try to get out of it by attempting to bring the raw materials to this country to be treated here. The opinion I formed at the time was that the best chance of an economic solution was to do the work
in Australia and to produce the zinc itself on the spot. Ever since I have considered this subject, I am more and more convinced that that is the proper course. The zinc industry passed through quite an extraordinary phase during the War, and for war purposes the development of production in the United States of America was enormous. There was a large production of zinc and it is now impossible to get rid of it. I confess I am rather inclined to agree with the Geddes Report that a very heavy loss is likely to face the Government over these particular contracts. I do not know that there is any way of getting out of them. I should strongly advise the Government, if they can, to cut their losses at the present time. Is it not possible for Australian interests which have already begun to develop the industry, to take over the contracts. I hope the Government will not jump out of the frying pan into the fire by seeking to carry on a complicated industrial operation, of which they cannot have full knowledge. All I can say is that this transaction shows the danger of the Governments taking up propositions of this kind without full knowledge. There are all sorts of snags to be met with in the development of a large property like this. It is only people who have been in the industry all their lives who can reckon up all the factors likely to come in. It is a warning to Ministers that Government operations really must be circumscribed. It is almost certain when a Government takes up a complicated problem like this that disaster will ensue. I rather gather that the Government, in the face of their experience, have arrived at the same conclusion. My object in rising was to admit, as most Members who were in the House at the time will admit, that during the War period the Government had to make an arrangement of some sort, but in making one extending over 13 years, I think they must have been over-persuaded by Mr. Hughes. Having made it, however, I hope they will not enter into any further arrangements making themselves responsible for operations which will involve the bringing of the ores to this country and their treatment here.

Mr. BETTERTON: As I was Chairman of the Board of Trade Departmental Committee which dealt with the question of non-ferrous mining, I should like to
say a few words on this question. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall), who was also a member of the Committee, will correct me if I, quite inadvertently, give a wrong impression of the conclusions which we formed. I want, if I may be allowed, to tell the House what in my opinion is the extent of the obligation and responsibility in which these Australian contracts involve this country. I do not think that has been explained by the Parliamentary Secretary or that the hon. Gentleman has given a quite adequate idea of the immense liabilities in which we are involved. The second point to which I desire to refer is this. Beyond any doubt, in spite of what my hon. Friend said, the existence and operation of these contracts has had a most disastrous effect on the zinc-mining industry of this country. My hon. Friend has, I confess, put Some of us in a difficulty when he asked us to be reticent as to the price. I am unwilling to suggest any sum, but I can only say that the price has been stated, and never denied, in every mining paper in the country, and therefore I think I am justified in saying that at this very moment these concentrates—I may remark that, while my hon. Friend has been speaking in terms of metal, I prefer to speak in terms of concentrates, and for this purpose it may be taken, quite rightly, that 22 tons of concentrates go to a ton of metal—at this very moment these concentrates are on offer, and some of them have been purchased in Swansea, at a price which is approximately 75s. per ton. Quite obviously, and without going into details, that involves this country in an immense loss.
Moreover, soon after these contracts were entered into, the Government, realising that the total smelting capacity of this country was, at the outside, 170,000 tons, while they had entered into contracts binding them to take a quantity rising from 250,000 to 300,000 tons, realised that in any circumstances, even if the smelting capacity of the country were used to the utmost, it would be. insufficient. Then they set up works at Avonmouth, on which they spent, I believe, some £500,000. Those works, so far as I know, have never smelted a single ounce of concentrates, and I think —the hon. Member for the Forest of
Dean will correct me if I am wrong—that at this moment they are derelict. Therefore, whatever loss we may have made or may make in the future, that £500,000 which was thrown away at Avonmouth must be added to the liability which these contracts have oust us. In spite of what my hon. Friend says, I have not the slightest hesitation, having regard to all the circumstances, of which I am fully aware, in describing these contracts as both reckless and improvident. To-night we are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate for £600,000, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of concentrates are represented by that £600,000. My reason for asking that question is this: As the Parliamentary Secretary said, there has been a great strike in Australia, which only finished some 10 months ago. The tot al production in Australia during the last year, according to figures which I have before me, was about 166,000 tons. During the first part of the year the three principal mines in Australia were not working at all. One of them only began to produce in July, another in September, and another not till December. The output from Australia before the War was 500,000 tons. I put it to the Committee that, with the security of these contracts behind them, their output of last year, which was only 166,000 tons, will enormously increase, and that next, year, in all human probability, it will be at least 300,000 tons, which we are under contract to take. If that be so, and if on an output of only 166,000 tons we have to pay something like £600,000, I think it is only fair to warn the Committee that very likely next year we shall have to meet an Estimate for something like double that amount. That is precisely what the Geddes Report said, namely, that the liability would be likely to run into millions.
I should like to make one or two observations in confirmation of what the Parliamentary Secretary said as to the position in Australia at the beginning of the War. It is true that in 1914 the whole Australian output of base metals, which was valued at something like £13,000,000 a year, was in the hands of a German group, of which the three principal partners were Aaron Hirsch and Sohn, Beer-Sondheimer, and the Metallgesellschaft.
They operated through a company with an English name, the Australian Metal Company, which, however, was in fact a German company. The effect was to tie up the whole output of spelter in Australia in 1014, with the result that the price which we had to pay for spelter in a very few months went up from about £22 or £23 per ton almost to £120—certainly well over £100. The Australian producers, as my hon. Friend very truly said, were bound by long-term contracts to the Germans. Some of those contracts provided that in case of war they should be annulled, and in other cases they were to be merely suspended, and the length of the war was to be added on at the end of the contract. I think it may quite well be that, when the Enemy Contracts Annulment Act was passed, those interested in the industry in Australia said, "You have deprived us of our certain market after the War, and we look to you to provide us with another one"; but in spite of that. I fail and always have failed to see, and I am sure the Geddes Committee failed to see, why it was necessary, in the first place, to embark on this contract for no less than 10 years after the termination of the War, while, secondly, it was certain, having regard to the very limited smelting capacity of this country, that, even in the most favourable circumstances, an immense stock of concentrates would be thrown on our hands.
I should also like to say a word or two upon the effect of these contracts on the producers in this country. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was hardly as sympathetic towards them as he might have been. He taunted them that they were unable to compete at the market price, but what is the use of talking about a market price when that market price has been artificially depressed by subsidised production? It is futile to talk of a market price, in such circumstances. When my hon. Friend said that they were unable anyhow, whatever happened to compete, the argument would appear to be that, having subsidised the Australian producer and having subsidised this Swansea Smelting Company—because that is really what it amounts to, having regard to the selling price of the concentrates to them—the only person to be left out is the home producer. After all, this is a home industry which
has been going on for 60 or 70 years at least—I do not know how much longer—

Major-General Sir C. LOWTHER: Since the Roman times.

Mr. BETTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend says since the Roman times. I have figures for the last 60 years, and that will be sufficient for my purpose. This industry, in which a great deal of capital has been sunk, found employment for a considerable number of men, who lived in isolated and mountainous and remote districts in England and Scotland, and now—very largely, as I am convinced, in consequence of this Australian contract—employers and employed are alike involved in common ruin. This estimate of £600,000, which represents the loss presumably for the year on these contracts, is the measure of the subsidy. From it you may gather the injury which you are inflicting on the producers in this country. What industry in the world can stand against subsidised competition such as those figures indicate? It is perfectly hopeless to contend that any industry can stand against such subsidised competition as that. From the moment that contract was signed, in the view of the Committee over which I presided it was highly probable—and events have proved that we were right—that the contract would be most dangerous to the producers in this country, but the moment the Government began to sell at a price far below the cost price the ruin of the industry in this country became inevitable. It is perfectly true that in relation to the Australian output the output in this country is small. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the figures, which entirely confirm the figures which I have. But the fact that it is small is no reason why it should be destroyed by subsidised competition. Those are the problems which the Committee had to consider, and it appeared to us that, having regard to the immense amount covered by these. contracts, secondly to the long term of the contracts—10 years after the termination of the War, thirdly to the accumulation in Australia, which was then great and is now greater, in the next place to the insufficient smelting capacity here, which under the most favourable circumstances could not have dealt with anything like all the concentrates we could buy, and in the last place to the fact that before the
War Germany took these concentrates from Australia and they did not come to this country at all, there was only one possible way of saving this industry, and having regard to the fact that the Australian output had been secured for 10 years at a certain price we felt that, unless the industry in this country was put upon the same footing, neither better nor worse than the industry in Australia, any other course would be discriminating against our own producers in favour of Australia, and looking back and knowing what I know now, I am absolutely convinced that that is the only reasonable, just and equitable thing to do.
One of the expert witnesses whom we examined, Sir Cecil Budd, who was adviser to the Ministry of Munitions during the War, one of the best-known experts in base metals in this country, entirely agreed with this suggestion which we made to him. I put the question to him quite definitely: "Having regard to the fact that the Government have bought this very large output and having regard to the small amount of our production as compared with the Australian production, do you think it would be fair to ask the Government to purchase the English output in the same way as they purchased the Australian output and on the same footing?" His answer was: "Yes, I think that would be perfectly fair." That view he repeated many times, and in this view that we formed we were fortified by his opinion. The Parliamentary Secretary held up his hands in horror at the thought of subsidies. So do I, but you have subsidised Australia for ten years, and if you treat the English producer as you treat the Australian what you are doing is not giving a subsidy but performing an act of reparation. We are putting him back to where he would have been, as near as you can, if these contracts had never been entered into. I cannot withhold my tribute of admiration of the courage, the patience and the dignity with which all those engaged in this non-ferrous mining industry in this country, whether as employer or employed, have faced this unparalleled situation, and it is difficult to remain unmoved when one observes the pathetic hope that even now the Government will do something to alleviate the calamities which have overtaken them. Trade conditions will improve sooner or
later, but when that time comes those engaged in this industry will be the unhappy spectators of a revival of industry in which they can take no part and no share because their mines will be waterlogged, they will have fallen in and will have been abandoned, and all this very largely in consequence of a contract entered into by their own Government which has had the result of the subsidizing of an Australian industry.

Mr. WIGNALL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I want to read two or three words from what everyone is talking about—the Geddes Report. The Parliamentary Secretary read parts of it, but left out some other parts. He said:
We are not familiar with the reasons for entering into this long-term agreement. The extent of the loss cannot at present be estimated, but it is almost certain to run into several millions.
That has been the position of all of us until to-night. We have tried to get the reason. We were trying for eight months, when you set up the Non-Ferrous Mines Committee. We had your experts before that Committee, your representatives, and we sent special requests for information, but it was all a locked secret. We were never able to get the information. We did not hear as much then as we have heard to-night. That was the thing that was troubling us on the Non-Ferrous Mines Committee during most of the time we sat. After our eight-months session of inquiries, and visits to the various mining centres, we could have added the same summary to our Report that has been made by the Geddes Committee:
We are not familiar with the reasons for entering into this long-term agreement.
Was not this contract made before the strike began at the Broken Hill Mines? For two years, or thereabouts, the strike continued, and if you required the concentrates, and if they were needed according to the terms of the contract in 1917, you could not get delivery from the mines, because the strike was on, and it continued. If there were dumps there, as there undoubtedly would be, you are receiving supplies at the present time of tailings and middlings, and the waste product of the mine—you had no means of transport then. Your limited shipping could not convey the concentrates to this
country, if you wanted them. Therefore, it was a very easy matter for you to have cancelled your contract, because of the non-fulfilment on the other side, through the strike and the inability to fulfil it. The concentrates were required for the manufacture of spelter; but during the War period spelter was not being used with the galvanising process of sheets. Black sheets were manufactured and they were painted instead of being coated with spelter. Then some composition was invented. Talk about stinking gas, it does not compare with the composition which was used for covering the black sheet. Spelter was not used at that time, and as there was not a great demand for spelter, the galvanising works in this country were closed down during at least two-thirds of the War period, and long beyond that.
9.0 P. m.
To sum up, the Government made a mighty bad bargain. We are willing to make allowances for the War atmosphere. Apparently, somebody got into a panic, and they thought that the price would be maintained after the War. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade eulogised them as being clever commercial men. I would not mind taking on their job. They were not very far-seeing. They did not touch the pulse of the market. They did not understand the possibilities involved in it. Consequently, the Government is landed into a great loss, and the taxpayers have to foot the bill. I believe that the Geddes Report underestimates the loss. The hon. Member who represents the Board of Trade thought that their Report was rather exaggerated, and that the reference to a loss of millions ought not to have been made.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Geddes Committee said that the extent of the loss cannot at present be estimated, and I said that that was quite clear. With reference to their statement that the loss would almost certainly run to several millions, I said that that might or might not turn out to be the case, but that no man could say at the present time.

Mr. WIGNALL: If we could get the whole history of the transaction in cold figures, I believe that the loss would prove to be millions already. This matter has never been submitted to the House. I
have been a Member since 1918, and I have never heard anything about it. I have looked up the Board of Trade Estimates for the last year or two, and I have found no reference to the matter, and I have spoken to hon. Members who were Members of this House before the last General Election, and they have never heard anything about the matter. We have all failed to get the information that has been so sadly needed. We have been told that this was a contract with the Germans. No doubt that is right. The Germans had control of the market. They had control of the whole output of the mines. Is it not a fact that the German contract price for zinc concentrates was 40s. per ton, pre-war, plus cost of transport? Is it not a fact that the contract which the Government entered into was to accept the production of the Australian mines up to 250,000 tons per annum, the first 100,000 tons at £4 10s. per ton f.o.b. plus transport, and the second 150,000 tons at £4 per ton f.o.b. plus transport, with the option to take any excess at £4 per ton plus cost of transport? You do not want any more of it. You are quite content with the burden you have on your shoulders. The lowest cost under the Government contract is exactly double the contract price in pre-War times in the German markets. If you obtain that you have got to continue to pay £4 a on up to the 30th June, 1930. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, because you have not even to-night laid the actual contract upon the Table. We do not know who signed it or what its contents are. I have been searching about for information haphazard. I am giving you this information. Probably you will reply with a number of contradictions presently, but these are the statements which I have been able to obtain, and I believe that they are correct. To whom have you been selling these concentrates? You have not been selling them to the British people.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Chair.

Mr. WIGNALL: I hope you will pardon me. I will make amends for that. I will not commit myself a second time. I should like to ask, Sir Edwin, to whom have you been selling the concentrates?
[Laughter.] It is worth while doing this to make some of these people laugh. It stirs them up and gives them a little bit of joy in life. To whom have the Government been selling the concentrates that they have been compelled to accept? They cannot say that they have been selling the concentrates to British spelter makers, because the spelter trade has been closed down for the last two years. Not a furnace has been lit, not a pound of spelter has been manufactured, and consequently the Government have had to accept deliveries of these hundreds of thousands of tons of concentrates coming from Australia, and they have had no place to put them except by paying storage for them either in Australia or in this country. It is only within the last few months that the Government have entered into a contract with the Welsh works. I am not blaming them for that. If they have got to make a loss they might as well cut the loss by giving employment in the home industry and enabling the English spelter works to continue. To that extent I am in agreement with them, but that is only a small portion of the whole.
What have the Government done with all the other hundreds of thousands of tons that have been delivered to them? Have they been selling to other countries, selling to Belgium or France or selling to Germany through the other countries? We have a right to know. We do know this, that while our spelter works are closed down spelter has been coming into this country. Has this spelter been made out of the Australian concentrates that should have been delivered in this country and has been diverted to Belgium, Germany or France and is now coming back? That is the way to make Germany pay. I am not irritated so much at this though it is irritating to find the Government making such a bad bargain, but my greatest irritation is that the bad bargain of the Government has displaced all the workers in the British lead and zinc mines. In speaking of the number of mines working, you did not take into consideration the lead produced and you must work out the blende to produce the lead. You have got to take the two together and you have got to realise its actual value and what it means, and, though this amount of which you have spoken is small, it represents, when the mines are fully employed,
practically 5,000 men employed. So you have got to add to your loss the loss of capital in the mine, the loss of profit arising out of the working of the mines, and the loss of work to at least 5,000 people who might have been and could be employed in the British mines at the present time.
Then there is the £500,000 which the Government gave for that monument that exists at Avonmouth. Is it not a fact that the Government also advanced another £500,000 to put up spelter plant in Australia? Was that a loan? If a loan, has it been repaid? Was it a gift? If not, what form did it take? If it has been erected, is the plant working and are we receiving the metal from these mines? There is tragedy in these things. I know that, no matter what we say, it is impossible for the Government to cancel their contract with Australia because they have tried to do that and have failed, and the private people interested in these Australian mines will hold you fast to the letter of your contract. Although we have not seen it they have got it all right, and they know that they have got you tied hard and fast until 1930 and they will hold you tight to your £4 for delivery of the hundreds of thousands of tons. You have got 700,000 tons of concentrates on the dock sides in Port Pirie to-day. I suppose that it must be about 1,000,000 tons by this time because it has been accumulating every day. You have got at least 780,000 tons on your own estimate lying there for transport to this country. It costs a lot of money to let it lie there. It costs more to bring it over here, and when you get it over you have got to sell it to other countries, and you have got to sell it at a lower price, than you have paid, because you cannot include in the price the subsidy which you have given.
Having come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to break the contract, I would not ask you even to try to make terms with them or to buy them out. That would not help us a hit. I would not ask you to appeal to them for the sake of British industries to cancel your contract. Very well then, if we fail there, if there is no hope in that direction, why cannot you accept the lesser of the two evils and take over on the same price the output of the British mines, as recommended by the experts who were called before us, and by the unanimous
decision of the Non-Ferrous Mines Committee. You say yourselves that it is only 6,000 tons, but every spelter maker will tell you, through Sir Edwin Cornwall—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will recollect I said he was to address me, but it is not for me to tell the Government what to do.

Mr. WIGNALL: I want to tell the Government through you, Sir, that every spelter maker will tell you, and by "you" I mean the Government, the responsible representatives of the Government here, that the British ore is absolutely necessary for them to produce good metal. A mixture of the British ores with the Australian concentrates means a better metal and cheaper production. Through the Deputy-Chairman I say to the Government that it will pay them to enable the British mines to continue their operations. It should be done if it were for that purpose alone. You say it only means 6,000 tons, and that it is a very small proportion for the needs of the moment, but every 100 tons of blende that is raised represents about 70 miners employed, and that is worth considering. The amount of the subsidy you would have to give is a small fragment compared to the mighty subsidy you are already giving to the Australian mine-owners. If you cannot get your contract cancelled or annulled or terminated in some other way, then think of those who are unemployed and who have been unemployed. Think of the dreary future before these miners. Think of those who have been brought up to that business and who, when trade was bright, had the chance of getting to other industries, but to-day find every door shut against them. They are unemployed with a very bad outlook of remaining unemployed. By the time this contract terminates, every mine in the United Kingdom will become derelict and absolutely ruined beyond redemption. That is a monument to bad management if you like. That is business ability and business foresight.

Mr. ROSE: Not fit to govern!

Mr. WIGNALL: No, I will not say that. They are fit to govern, and so are we.

Mr. ROSE: You are too generous.

Mr. WIGNALL: No, I am not too generous. I am bound to give them credit for making a bad bargain. As I have said, every mine will become derelict and flooded, capital will be lost and labour destroyed beyond the possibility of redemption. Before it is too late, before it is impossible to recover, I implore the Government through you, Sir Edwin, to take steps at the last to save these British mines from utter extinction.

Sir C. LOWTHER: I rise with great diffidence to speak after such experts as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton) and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall), and also with a great deal of diffidence, because this is the first time I have had the honour of addressing this Parliament. I can assure the Committee that, whatever other faults I may have, I will never trouble them by being too long either on this or on any other subject. I do not wish to go into the question of the original contract. I look on that as a War matter, and we have got to write off our bad contracts against our good contracts. I have no intention of climbing into the genealogical tree of this contract to chop at its branches nor of attacking Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench for contracts made long before they occupied that dignified position. Rather am I interested to know how best we can get rid of the bad effects of this contract on our industry. I am perfectly certain that if the Government had been able to get out of this contract they would have done so, and I think it is justifiable to assume that they have made every effort in that direction.
Speaking for a constituency where there are a very considerable number of lead and zinc miners, I feel particularly interested and it is for those men in my constituency that I am now speaking. They are most seriously affected, as owing to the incidence of the Government contract, every lead and zinc mine in my constituency is closed and the men are out of work. Now, lead miners are not easily transported labour. They live up on the hillsides and in out of the way places. Supposing that the coal mining industry of Cumberland were in a flourishing position, a certain number of them might find employment there, but that unfortunately is not the case. A number of our coal mines are among the poorest
and they will he the last to come into production. They have plenty of unemployed of their own to deal with, without being called on to absorb these unfortunate men thrown out of work by the shutting down of the lead and zinc industry. There is another point. The men working in the mines are thrown out of work, but these mines of which I am speaking are not big concerns—I do not think any of the lead mines in this country are very large concerns—and all the shareholders are local people who have put their savings into them. It may be said that they have speculated, but they put their savings into local lead mines which have been running for a very long time. I took the liberty just now of correcting an hon. Member about one which has been running since the Roman days and the shareholders looked upon it as a good steady investment. These local shareholders are now deprived of a large portion of their income and that again produces unemployment because they are able to employ fewer people locally and are able to consume less. So there is not only the direct unemployment, but the indirect unemployment.
This Government contract is one of long duration and the thing we have to look forward to is to keep these mines alive until brighter times come and the Government contract falls in. The maintenance of idle mines during long periods is a very costly matter. The people who have lost a great portion of their income, and indeed of their capital, are not in a position to go on putting up money year after year for the maintenance of idle mines. The result of that will be that in a short or a long period, according to the special circumstances of each mine, these mines will fall in and will become derelict and useless. The Government contract will not have caused temporary unemployment but permanent unemployment, and the killing of a small but a very worthy little industry. Furthermore, if the zinc trade is killed, a thing which the zinc concentrates contract is doing, then the home lead mining industry will be killed also. There are very, few mines in this country where the zinc is separable from the lead. The lead and zinc are worked together, and very often the little amount made on the zinc represents the profits of the mine, the lead representing the working expenses.
Already these lead mines have gone out of operation and—I speak subject to correction—I believe that we are buying lead from abroad instead of working our own lead at home.
The only equitable course seems to be to include the home mines in the provisions of the Australian contract. We shall be told that that is subsidising an industry, and the usual capital will be made of that expression; but that is not quite just. Already we are subsidising an industry, not in this country, but in one of the Dominions. If we are doing that already, what harm can there be in extending it by a finger's breadth in order to save a good many men from unemployment in this country? We have sat in this House for many hours working out grandiose schemes or lesser schemes to try to deal with unemployment. Surely, here and now we have, for the expenditure of a very small sum, an arrangement by which we can give immediate employment to men who are immediately ready to go to work in mines which they know, under owners and supervisors whom they know, which mines are already in existence. It is not speculative or conjectural work; it is something we know can be got working to-morrow if once the owners and managers know that they are going to be able to get a decent price for the ore which they produce. The amount will be very small; the obligations of the State, if it were to buy ore on the terms recommended by the Departmental Committee, would be very small. The payment to the home mines for the next five years, I am given to understand, would not amount to the total subsidy now being paid to the four great Australian mines in one month. The present Australian output is, roughly, about 250,000 tons. Our production in the third year from now is estimated at 3,000 tons, or an increase of 1.2 per cent.
That is not very much to ask for. If better times come, if trade revives, then the amount which the Government are losing on the contract w ill be less, and the amount lost on this trfling proportion will equally be less. The cost to the country will be very small indeed. Indirectly, I consider that the cost will be less to the Government, than it is now through out-of-work donation, through poor relief, and, incidentally, through work being done extremely indifferently
by unemployed men working at a job which they do not know. The home production is very small compared with that of the Australian mines, but it represents a very long-standing industry in this country, which is absolutely threatened with extinction at the present moment. I am glad to endorse the statement made by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall), that the addition of British ore to the Australian ores in the smelting process gives a result which is better than that produced from the pure Australian ores, and can at the same time he produced at a more favourable price. I beg to press the President of the Board of Trade to include the home mines in the provisions of the Australian contract for the purchase of sine concentrates. That is not subsidising an industry, but is a small act of reparation which is perhaps going to save a very modest and very hard-working industry.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I think we can divide the question into two parts. The first part was the policy of controlling the spelter trade. Everybody who is connected with the spelter trade before the War broke out knew perfectly well that it was in German hands. The German control limited the quantity of spelter that any firm in this country could buy, and it limited the time over which it would sell; the result being that, on the outbreak of war, the whole of the galvanising works of this country found themselves either denuded of their stock of spelter or with an insufficient stock to carry on for more than a very short time. It was apparent that the Government had to take some steps to safeguard the position and to prevent the zinc trade from getting back into German hands. Therefore the policy adopted by the Government of the day was a perfectly sound one. Unfortunately, the contract which had been made with the Australian zinc producers was an exceptionally bad one for this country. I believe that the Government have got an exceedingly bad contract, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) that they should add to their commitments by taking on another exceedingly bad contract with the home producers. I regret very much that the home mines are stopped, but I do not think you ought to call on the British taxpayer to
take over another load of responsibility in order to keep them going.
The Government ought very seriously to consider how they are going to deal with this contract. Are they going to bring the concentrates over to this country, and thereby incur very heavy charges for transport? I understand—I speak subject to correction—that the contract price is somewhere about £4 a ton, and that the cost of bringing the ore over to this country is another £4 10s., making a total cost of something about £9 a ton delivered in this country. What commitments have the Government got in regard to transport to this country? Have they booked freight very far in advance Have they long-dated contracts for the conveyance of the ore at excessive prices considering the market value of freight to-day, or are they fairly clear? Would not the right policy for the Government to adopt be to cut their loss? They have got 250,000 tons of concentrates to take per year. Had they not better sell them in Australia, to those who will buy them, to the ordinary trade, and say: "The loss was so much, that was our insurance for controlling the supply?" Let them sell on short-dated contracts, in order that they may be quite certain that if the necessity arises again they will still control an entirely adequate supply of this metal for our own uses.
I am quite certain that the way in which any private firm would have dealt with a contract of this sort, if they could not get accommodation from the seller, would have been to have cut their loss and to minimise it as far as possible. They would not have attempted to bring the ore over to this country and thus incur heavy charges for so doing, or have run the risk of making further large losses in transit, for charges in commissions, and so on. I should like to emphasise what my hon. Friend said about the Avonmouth works. We have heard of that disastrous experiment; but there is an Australian experiment. What are the terms of that contract, and the terms upon which money has been invested in Australia? Is it possible for the Government to recover that amount of money? These are matters which the Government ought to clear up. I do not blame them at all for controlling the zinc trade. I think they did quite right, that that policy ought to be continued, and that they should take care that they keep
that trade in their hands. At the same time, they should apply ordinary business methods to their contracts, and should take care that the next contract is not disastrous.

Major BARNES: No one who knows anything about the fell-sides of the North Country in which these mines are situated, or has seen the scattered homes of those who world in them, but must sympathise in the greatest possible degree with them in the conditions in which the policy we are now discussing has placed them; but they are to be congratulated on having found in the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Sir C. Lowther) someone who has very ably championed their cause. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has proved to the House that he is the possessor of a heart very closely associated with the district of these people. The charge against the Government is a three-fold charge. First, that they made a bad bargain; second, that that bargain has resulted, and will result, in a very considerable burden upon the taxpayer; and, third, that the result of that bargain is to produce a state of unemployment in this country and to risk very valuable national property, the lead mines that exist here. The Government's answer, as I understood it from the Minister who presented the Vote, is, first, that the bargain is not theirs, that it was made by their predecessors; second, that it is not so bad a bargain as it seems; and, third, that the results which are deplored have not arisen from the bargain. That seems a fairly full and complete answer, but upon examination it can be shown that there are some flaws in it.
After having said what I have said about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith, I am sorry that I am obliged to climb up the genealogical tree and to chatter in the branches. My hon. and gallant Friend seemed to be up the trunk, and I do not like to leave him in that solitary position. The question of the responsibility for this bargain, while it is, perhaps, not very pertinent at this stage, is one that must be considered a little, in view of the fact that the Minister was engaged in shifting the responsibility from this Government to its predecessor. Hon. Members to my left say that that is justifiable. When I was listening to the Minister's speech,
there came into my mind a judgment given recently in the Courts, in which the judge, referring to two witnesses, said one of them remembered too much and the other remembered too little. As I listened to the Minister, I felt that he was at one and the same time remembering too much and remembering too little. Within the life of this Parliament, in May, 1919, a question was asked about this contract, and the answer given by the Secretary for Mines, to a Member on this side of the House, was that the zinc concentrates contract was made in April, 1918. The Minister in charge of the Vote has taken us a great deal further back to-night. He got back, first of all, to 1917, and then to the Paris Resolutions of 1916. Finally, he landed on a speech made by Mr. Hughes in Australia in 1914. As I understood him, the whole trend of his argument was that whatever this bargain may be, it is not a bargain for which this Government or the Government immediately preceding it was responsible, that if there be responsibility it must attach to previous Ministers, particularly to Mr. Runciman, who was President of the Board of Trade.
I have noticed a growing habit on the part of the Government to father all their bad bargains on Mr. Runciman. If it be a bad bargain that was made with regard to Railway Agreements, it is put on to Mr. Runciman. It is that very fact which raises some doubt in my mind on this occasion, because I remember that when one looked closely into the matter of the Railway Agreements, one found that if Mr. Runciman was as responsible at all, it was a most nominal responsibility, for he was appointed only the night before the Agreement was concluded, and the real responsibility rested with the present Prime Minister. Of course, these Gentlemen are not in the House now to defend themselves, and I take that as some excuse for probing this matter a little on their account. The comment I make is this: That while the Minister was perfectly clear about many points of detail and appeared to have ransacked the archives of the Board of Trade or the Colonial Office, or whatever Department has the papers—we have not seen them—and informed himself of everything that occurred so far back as 1914, when it came to exact details of the contract he was not informed about
them. That was a very curious lacuna in his story, because that is the material point.
As he stated the position, one understood it as being this: That on the outbreak of war the Australian Government found that their whole market for these concentrates was cut off, because they had been going formerly to Germany. On the other hand, we in this country found ourselves in the position that we were exposed to a very great shortage of what was essential, spelter, and it was the most natural thing in the world that the Australian Government and the British Government should come together and make some arrangement to meet the situation. That was not only natural, but commendable. But there is all the difference in the world between being responsible for coming together and for discussion, and being responsible for an actual agreement and contract arising out of the discussion. It is upon this point that the Minister was extremely vague..He fixed the responsibility for the coming together and for the discussion upon those early predecessors of his, but when it came to the question as to who made the actual contract, who fixed the price and the term of years, he had no information to give the House.
Probably this knowledge may repose in the breast of the President of the Board of Trade. I believe he assents to that. In that case, we shall no doubt get the information. I suppose that the Minister in charge of the Vote had to leave something of interest to his right hon. Friend. It may be that the President of the Board of Trade is able to fix precisely the actual responsibility for this contract. If he is able to do so, I hope he will do so, because at present the impression is given that certain gentlemen, formerly Ministers, but not now Ministers or Members of this House, are responsible for this extremely bad bargain. It would be very unfortunate and unfair if they were placed under that imputation without the responsibility being theirs. If they are responsible, they must accept the responsibility. I gather that before this Debate ends, the Minister will clear up that point.
After all, however, the question of the responsibility is not now a material point. The question is: How are we to get out of this difficulty in which we find our-
selves? I think that to find a way out we must look for a moment at the way in, and the way we got into this difficulty was the fact that what in course of time had become the natural market for the Australian concentrates was cut off. These concentrates found themselves naturally coming to Germany and to Europe, and from them was produced the metal which came to this country. That destination was blocked, and the effort and the aim of the Government at that time was to prevent these concentrates ever finding their way to Germany again, if possible to destroy the German trade and the German manufacture of spelter, and to establish it either in Australia or in this country. That being the object of the Government at that time, we are now able to see how entirely futile a thing it is to attempt to divert from a natural path the course of trade. We have got here another example of the impossibility of hurting Europe and hurting Germany without hurting ourselves.
What has happened here? You had the Government dealing with this particular article, and the result is that they have produced in this country unemployment and shut up mines. Is not that precisely what has happened, on a very much larger scale and in a very much greater industry, by the action of the Government in regard to the German merchant marine? What took place there was that they got a vast amount of tonnage in ships, as here they have a vast amount of tonnage in ores, and by their action and their disposal of ships they produced exactly the same situation in the shipyards of this country that has been produced in these mines. Coal is the same thing. They took from the Germans millions of tons of coal, and the effect of doing so and of disposing of that coal was to produce the coal stoppage in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members query that statement, but I will not be led away into an argument, although, if the House desired it, I should be perfectly willing to take up that point. I simply make my point, that what has happened here is that, in the endeavour to divert trade from Germany to hurt German industry, we have only succeeded in hurting ourselves.
What is the way out? There is the suggestion of cancelling these contracts, and if it could have been done fairly that
probably would have been done, but it cannot be done. The contracts are there, and they are no doubt perfectly firm and secure, and they must be maintained. That way out is not possible. The suggestion has come from both sides of the House that to this big burden should be added a smaller burden, and that, as we have subsidised Australian industry to a very considerable extent—because there is open proof that there are Australian mines which are opening and commencing work simply on the strength of this subsidy and earning their profits purely and entirely out of it—we should follow the same process in regard to the English mines. I do not feel, much as I sympathise with the people who are working in these mines, that that is a path upon which it is really safe to enter. The Government have themselves resisted it, because, for one thing, they might be asked to do the same thing in other directions. If lead and zinc mines are to be subsidised, tin mines might have to be subsidised and coal mines also, and there would be a broad road there that would lead to financial destruction.
I suggest to the Government that the path pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) is the right path. Dispose of these things in Australia, leave trade again to follow its natural course, and if these ores stay in Australia they will find their way through their own channels back again to the old markets. An hon Member says, "Good old Germany!" What does the Genoa Conference mean but that we are out once more to reconstruct Europe and to set trade moving back along its old channels? Here is an opportunity for the Government to give some practical evidence of their desire to do that and to secure a double benefit—not only to benefit Europe, but to do something to relieve the situation at home here. Again, if this ore is left in Australia, you save a great amount of carriage, because it is estimated to cost the Government something like £4 or £4 10s. a ton to bring these ores here from Australia. That loss might be cut, and by reversing the present policy you might do much to relieve the situation.

Lieut.-Colonel PARRY: I wish to ask the attention of the President of the
Board of Trade to this contract. The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Sir C. Lowther), who made a very able maiden speech to-night on a subject he had very much at heart, brought before the attention of the right. hon. Gentleman this point, and he quoted his own district, and may I also be allowed to quote an area in my own constituency. I refer to the area which is very well known as the Halkyn mining area. According to the recent Royal Commission sitting on metalliferous mines, it was declared to be the wealthiest lead mining area in this country. The position there to-day is that there is not a single chimney smoking or a single shaft working, and there is not a single miner engaged in mining. I am not going to say that all this is due to this present contract, but I am going to say that these mines, which could work, cannot work to-day owing to the hardships imposed on them by the condition's of this contract.
The real position there is this, that many of these mines have now gone below the water line in working. Negotiations have been going on, and are still going on, in regard to arrangements by which these mines can he unwatered, and this wealthy area once more become a real hive of the lead-producing industry. Very soon it will be necessary to ask for capital in order to work these mines, and, in my view, and the view of mining experts, it will be practically impossible to obtain the necessary capital to work this area while this contract is in force. I would really ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that the men in this district, where they have been working for years, where they and their families have been for generations, are now practically unemployed. The lead miner is not an easy man to find work for, even in normal times, and to-day, with all the unemployment about, it is practically impossible to obtain employment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give very sympathetic consideration to this point, namely, whether he cannot consider some way to relieve the distress of these districts, and find employment for these miners.

Mr. SWAN: This agreement, like the coal agreement, has had a very disastrous effect on the workers in my constituency in particular. The coal agreement cast miners out of work and closed mines.
Here we have another agreement, which has acted, and is acting, as an absolute boomerang on our people. Instead of striking at Central Europe and the Germans, our men have been hit very severely. In the light of promises and pledges made to them, they hoped that, instead of the industry being closed down, there was a great possibility of the industry being developed. Instead of that, we find two-thirds of the miners out of work, and the taxpayers involved in a charge owing to this agreement, and another tax imposed on the community in having to provide unemployment pay. I, therefore, desire to second, if necessary, the Amendment of my hon. Friend, to reduce this Vote as a protest, for I think a strong protest ought to be made against this agreement. Hon. Members have spoken about honouring pledges and agreements that have been come to with other nations. We made pledges to the soldiers, one of them being that they should come back to a new world, whereas they find themselves on the scrap heap, due to regulations made years ago, in which they have had no say. If a quarter of this money had been spent in the development of these areas the men out of work in these lead regions could all have been found useful employment, and the mines could have been developed there again. Consideration ought to be given to the possibility of cancelling that agreement, and using some of the money as a subsidy, or in some way developing these regions. I hope the Government will take steps either to cancel the agreement, or to come to the assistance of the miners to an amount equal to the transport of the tonnage.

10.0 P.m.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Might I suggest to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he should be a little more open to the House and the country as regards this contract? Let us have as much publicity as possible upon it. I do not believe in secrecy. There is no doubt the Government, or the Government of 1914, '15, '16, '17, or '18—I do not know—has been led into a bad contract. The responsibility has been placed upon Lord Harcourt, Mr. Runciman, Mr. McKenna, and the present and late Leaders of the House. As I understand it, there was another gentleman who was rather a villian of the piece, and that was the present Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Hughes, who took a very prominent
part in squeezing the British Government of that day. What is the good of this reticence? It is known perfectly well to all the people who want to know it. It is very well known in Australia, at any rate. A friend of mine sent me some quotations the other day from a very responsible newspaper, the Sydney "Bulletin," of the 20th October, 1921. This paper throws a little side-light on the history of the matter, and I hope I shall be forgiven if I read a few extracts:
The British Government went into zinc in mid-War owing to the squeeze by Hughes and the zinc producers crowd, and also, seemingly, to some extent in gratitude for the grit the digger was showing in France. The Broken Hill Companies provide the zinc concentrates, and, if they have it to sell, also spelter. The British Government has to take the concentrates under its 10 years' contract, but the zinc market is shocking, and all poor John Bull can do is to pay up and stack the stuff till the clouds roll by, or a willing buyer, at a price, turns up.
The Australians know all about it, so I hope we shall be afforded a little information.
One willing buyer is the Electrolytic Zinc, which is made up in the main of the Broken Hill Companies.…Thus Broken Hill, as the producer, has sold to Father Bull at a price that brings in a good profit, now buys back from Father Bull, who, apparently, has to shoulder a big loss. Then, still, under the 10 years' contract, the electrolytic zinc made from the re-bought concentrates presumably goes back to Father at a premium on the current market price of spelter.
We should like to know, is this so? I am always a believer in publicity to help out the Government.
So if the market does not come to the rescue it looks as though Father Bull will be landed with two big losses on the one lot of stuff. In that case Hughes—
That is the Australian statesman
instead of having squelched the Hun Zinc industry has merely succeeded in putting the British Government in an awkward hole.
The Government would be in an awkward hole if there was a real regular strong Opposition here of almost equal number to themselves.
Hughes should be told to cable all the correspondence and reports to show the arguments used to the British Government to induce it to enter into the contract.
That is what the Australians say. Let us know more about it meantime. This Australian paper goes on to say:
Meantime the less people talk about patriotism and their unselfish affection for Father Bull the better.
I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, who has all the contracts he has made in this matter, should give us the information for which we ask. It is not only that the British House of Commons have a right to demand it. There is too much secrecy in these matters. Only to-day I was told that we could not have the money cost of the troops in Palestine because it would be misleading. But you cannot treat the House of Commons like that. The House of Commons, after all, is the guardian of the public purse. They are the representatives of the taxpayers, and if the taxpayers are going to spend millions on whatever it may be they ought to have the fullest information. That is a demand nobody can resist. The Government have no right to spend this £500,000 without the British public—that is the taxpayer—knowing something about it. It is no use the hon. Gentleman talking about being reticent as to the figures; you will have to bring them out, if not now, some time later. You have kept this thing corked up for three years, ever since the Armistice. You have a 10 years' contract. How many millions is it going to run us into? Let us know that.
I am not blaming the Government, but let us know what we are in for. Surely right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Government Bench cannot resist that request! My hon. Friend says it depends upon your purchaser, and what the market will be. Let us know what you have paid. What objection is there to that? Everybody in Australia who matters knows it. The zinc producers' crowd to which I have referred all know what price you have paid. Do not imagine that every man in the trade does not know what price you paid for this thing. Therefore let the President of the Board of Trade make a clean breast of it. Let him say: "I will tell you all about it." I asked a question about this the other day. I asked for all this information. I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
Mr. LAMBERT asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the terms of the purchase of concentrates in Australia; what is the price to be paid? How much has been paid? What quantities of such concentrates have been sold? To what firms, and at what prices?
Mr. BALDWIN: I Will shortly make a full statement on these matters in connection with a Supplementary Estimate and perhaps my right hon. Friend will not object to awaiting that statement." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1922; col. 648, Vol. 150.]
I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that reply. Perhaps he will not object to make that statement. I am awaiting it. We want a full and complete statement of our liabilities. Exactly what was paid. Exactly what sums have been spent since. Exactly what contracts have been entered into to dispose of this spelter. I firmly believe that the Government in their own interest—but I will not say that, because after all, they are under a responsibility and my right hon. Friends opposite are not responsible; they were not in office when these contracts were made. I firmly believe that in order to get the British taxpayer out of the mess he has been put into by this zinc-producers crowd, we had better have full information and then see what we can do by way of help and advice. Therefore I rose for the special purpose of asking my right hon. Friend the President, of the Board of Tra—he is an honest Minister, he has nothing to conceal—to give the House of Commons and the country full details of the contract which the Geddes Committee says may run the taxpayers into millions of money.

Captain ELLIOT: For the past two years I have had many of my constituents suffering great hardship and loss because of these contracts of the Government. In my constituency we have an ancient mining community on the hills who have suffered the almost total destruction of their market. Certainly during the last nine months they have carried on under tremendous difficulty, in which they have been put largely because of this contract of the Government. My hon. Friend opposite mentioned the question of prices. I think it is worth while to have some statement as to the prices which were circulated in my constituency, which is a lead-mining constituency. Constituents of mine understand that the Government is using the British taxpayers' money to buy these concentrates and to dump them on the market here below the cost of production, thereby knocking our mines entirely out of action, and refusing
even the poor consolation that would enable our people to share in that advantage.
It was stated so long ago as July, 1920 —our people were so informed—that, though the Government were going to buy these Australian concentrates, they were not going to dump the goods on the British market with the British taxpayers' money and then call on the British taxpayer to pay the unemployment donation to men put out of employment by this policy. In 1921 that policy apparently had been dropped. The present information about the prices seems to be what was referred to by the last speaker who made his point on it. I ask the Government either to affirm or deny this statement: whether or not it is a fact that at present the Government are selling a blend of spelter at 75s. per ton in Swansea which cost well over 160s. a ton? It is obviously impossible for the mines of this country to meet the competition of a Government which buys goods and dumps them down at a low cost price in this country, and the economic absurdity of using the taxpayers' money to throw the taxpayer out of employment, subsequently levying the taxpayer still in employment to pay out-of-work donations to these men, must be manifest at, all. The amount of money required to extend the matter to the miners of this country must be relatively small. The output of the mines in this country is not anything like sufficient for the lead consumption of the country, and there is an absolute necessity for a revision of the terms of this contract. Two Committees appointed by the. Government themselves have reported in favour of the development of a scheme in the district of which I happen to be the Member. There are two mines there, and it is suggested that a deep tunnel should be driven to drain these mines and to bring into action the mines which are becoming water-logged, and many shallow veins which have already gone out of action owing to this water-logging going on at the depth at which these mines at present are being worked. But it is obvious that nobody is going to put money into a product which is being bought by the Government with the taxpayers' money, and which dumps concentrates here at 75s. per ton, as against a cost of production of 160s. per ton! My constituents have put the case to me that in 1917 a committee
recommended that this was an excellent field for the development of a metalliferous area, one of the richest in Scotland, by means of this tunnel to drain both the mines. This scheme was again recommended by the Mines Commission of 1920, of which a Member of this House was the Chairman. The Government have taken no action in respect of these two reports, although all these things have been worked out, and the report of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, with more than one Member of this House on the Committee, has stated that there is a good case for a development of this kind, and there is a chance that it would do more than can be done by paying unemployment donation to these men. The tunnel which was recommended would cost £200,000, but after spending that you would have a tunnel, and the mines would be clear. To drain the mines which are going to produce lead for this country is surely better than paying unemployment donation. Hon. Members opposite may think that this is State Socialism.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Fabianism!

Captain ELLIOT: At any rate, it is a scheme which offers some chance of a return, and it is worth while the Government looking into it. Most Socialist schemes offer nothing in return for the money which you are going to throw into them, but when you have a thing reported upon favourably by two Committees, I think the matter is worthy of the consideration of the Government. If the Government continue to dump their goods on the top of these mines, how are you going to keep the mines going? The Government is not consistent about many things, although there is no doubt about it that when it gets a straightforward wrong-headed scheme of this kind you can rely upon it killing English trade. The Government should tell us what they are paying for these Australian concentrates and what they are selling them at here. We want to know whether it is true, as asserted in the Scottish mining area, that they are dumping these things here at about half the cost of production. They should at least tell us whether they are willing to purchase the material turned out by the British mines, which are just as important as the mines of Australia, and it is much better to develop our resources here than in Aus-
tralia, because the transport of these materials overseas is beset with all manner of interruption before they can be shipped to Great Britain. If at least they say, "We are not dumping goods against your people and your own money"; if they say, "We are prepared to enter into a scheme for the development of those areas if you can show there is something to be gained thereby"; if they will only give us the privilege of saying to us, "We have examined your case, we are ready to answer the figures you have brought forward, we think there is nothing in your case," we will accept that statement.
At least let them do us the honour of admitting that this subject has been reported upon by two Committees of Members and non-members—Committees which have reported favourably on development schemes for metalliferous areas, which are being held up. Let them at least recognise that patriotism like charity begins at home, and that the miners in this country did as much for the Empire in the days of its trouble as did those in Australia. That is what we ask. Mr. Hughes made his fame as a great man by speaking up for Australians. Let our Prime Minister realise that his brother Welshman did not make his name by speaking up for British or Welsh miners. When the Cabinet has got our two millions of people back into employment, then it can set about helping the Australian miner to get employment. Their duty is in the first place to the miners of this country, and then, after that, to the miners of Australia.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I think we have had a very interesting discussion, and I am quite sure that those Members of the Committee who were in the House when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade spoke will agree with me that he made a very fair and thorough presentment of his case. I say that because I have noticed that one or two speakers who did not hear my hon. Friend rather assumed he had overlooked various points on which he had touched, I think, fairly fully. I will just allude to one point put by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) and I do so in order to get it out of the way, as, for the purposes of
this Debate, it is not really a very material point. It is as to the original responsibility for these contracts. It is a responsibility which must be shared amongst a great many men. It is not always fair to judge of the past in the light of present conditions, for it is an anachronism which is very apt to mislead. At the time this contract was made there is no doubt that the strongest arguments could be used for it. That is generally admitted and the only point I want to put to my hon. Friend is that the details as to prices and so forth—every-thing except details of administration, were settled with Mr. Hughes before he left for Australia in the autumn of 1916. I just give that information because my hon. and gallant Friend asked for it. It is not that I think it has any very direct bearing upon what we are now discussing.
I would begin by reminding the Committee of two or three of the smaller points which have been raised in the course of the Debate, before I come to the larger question. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce) said that he hoped we had no intention of manufacturing. We have not. We have no intention of manufacturing. The hon. and gallant Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) said that he hoped we would apply business methods in dealing with the contract. We shall. The hon. Member for Limehouse, and several other hon. Members, said, "Cut your loss," and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) asked, "Why did you not nit your loss before?" There is no provision for cancelling under any such conditions as arose during the time that he mentioned. I have always been an advocate of cutting your loss, and I should like to do it with this contract. I have been told to adopt business methods, but is there any man of business in the House of Commons who thinks it is an easier task for me to try and cut the loss by getting the contract cancelled after what has been said in this Debate about this contract—after what has been said about the Prime Minister of Australia by the hon. Member who spoke last?
These are just the difficulties that we have when a Government takes to trading. No one in the House of Commons is more strongly against Government trading than I am, but until this con-
tract is cancelled, and so long as I am at the Board of Trade, I have to do the best I can for the taxpayer with regard to this contract. It is a difficult task at the best of times, and every minute spent on discussion of the contract makes it more difficult. Nevertheless, I am in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). I have always been, and I think my right hon. Friend will give me credit for being, an advocate of laying everything that I possibly can before the House of Commons. I agree with him that the British House of Commons has a right to demand it; I agree with him that the British House of Commons is the guardian of the public purse. But in a case like this, although the House of Commons has a right to demand, and, if it insisted on its demand, could force, the publication of what, as my hon. Friend said, we feel must be withheld, it would, to the same degree that it forced that, cease to be the guardian of the public purse. [interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will wait a moment. With regard to selling prices—and here, I think, no one will disagree with me—if all selling prices are disclosed, and the markets in which the sales are made, you will make it impossible for us to sell on any reasonable terms. You make a difficult task an impossible one. I do not 1.Ilink I need elaborate that point.

Major BARNES: That was not asked for. It was the price at which they were purchased.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked for full particulars of all prices. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) asked me. He has been saying, as others have, what a bad contract this is. It does not make my task easier to go to the Australians and say, "The whole House of Commons has risen up and said that this is the rottenest contract that ever was made," and then to say, "What will you take to let me out of it?" I do not know whether my right hon. Friend, who is so fond of publicity in business, ever tried to sell a horse, but if he did I do not suppose he would go into the market and say, "I have a horse to sell; he has got broken knees and is a roarer, but I should like you to give me the best price you can for him." That is very much what would happen to the unhappy man who tries to get out of a con-
tract on the best terms he can when all his friends say it is the worst contract that ever was made. As a matter of fact this contract at the moment is a bad one, as everybody has said. But I do not think anyone can forecast what the result of the full term working of the contract would be, if the contract is not cancelled in the interval. When spelter rises to a certain point, and not too great a point, above where we now are, we shall cease to lose money, and if spelter rises substantially, the contract would show a profit, and it was estimated by good judges not so very long ago that with normal trade, with normal ups and downs, the contract in the latter part of its existence ought to show nearly as much profit as it probably will make loss in its earlier years. It entirely depends on the world market for spelter. But, nevertheless, my own view is that, whatever the prospect of the world market may be, the right thing is for the Government to get out of this contract as and when opportunity arises, and that is my policy. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean raised one or two points apart from the main subject of his speech, and in answer to him I would say we have not made any sales so far in Germany, and I would tell him and other hon. Members who are interested in the particular point that the Government have not subscribed £500,000, or any sum at all, to put up a smelting plant in Australia. It is quite true that at the time of the original discussion that subject was raised, and I do not know how far at that time the Government may have been committed, but nothing has been paid, and we recognise no obligation now as to anything that may have been said at that time.
The next point that has been raised in this Debate has been a kind of by-product of the contract itself, and it has been raised by hon. Members interested in lead and zinc mining in this country, who have pleaded very earnestly and very strongly for support for the industry in which they are interested, and they have alleged with great force in support of their contention that the trouble from which the lead and zinc industry is suffering is caused directly by the existence of the contract for zinc concentrates. I think there is a certain amount of confusion in their minds. My hon. Friend
who opened the Debate gave some interesting statistics on this question to show the problem in its proper proportions so far as the Debate was concerned. I should like by way of preface to say a word or two on the question from this aspect. I am sure hon. Members, and particularly those who have spoken on this matter, will believe me when I say that the matter of the lead and zinc mines in England and Wales and Scotland has given me occasion for a great deal of very serious consideration and in some aspects has been very distressing.
There is no doubt that in these industries there has been a great deal of suffering. I have seen deputations from people interested in these industries, and I have discussed the matter with them very fully. Certainly, the problems with which they are faced are very grave, because there is no doubt in my mind, and I do not think there can be any doubt in the mind of anyone who reads the Report which was presented to this House by the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Betterton) that, economically these industries are not able to stand without assistance, unless it may be in one or two peculiarly favoured districts where they may be singularly fortunate in the quality of the ores they work. Speaking generally, they cannot stand, economically, unaided. The existence of the Australian zinc concentrates contract is having no effect one way or the other at the present time on the position of these mines. If the contract were not in existence, and, therefore, no Debate took place on the subject, there is not a single works in Great Britain that would be attempting the manufacture of spelter, because the world price for spelter is such that it cannot be made in this country, and there would be made no demand for the English ores. It is quite true—and I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean would object to this —that during the winter, when unemployment was at its height, and when we were searching in every direction for means of helping the unemployed, the British Government, having large quantities of concentrates on their hands, sold a limited amount, for a limited time, to the British spelter makers, on condition that they would restart their works with these con-
centrates. The concentrates were sold at a price which was calculated to allow them to make spelter without loss at the world's present price.
Having regard to the circumstances I think the Government were perfectly right in doing that. They were able, by means of having the contract, to release, although at a substantial loss, a certain amount of concentrates with the object of aiding the unemployed in certain districts in Great Britain where unemployment was rife. It may be said, "Why not take the English zinc ores into this contract?" If the English zinc ores were taken in at the price paid for the Australian ores, they could not be sold. The zinc ores mined in this country would cost considerably more than it costs to bring the concentrates to this country. The only way in which the Government can help the zinc ore miners is not by buying material for the British smelter, or buying their products, but by directly subsidising them. That may or may not be the right policy. I would remind the Committee that these particular industries were carried through the War by subsidies, and very rightly so. There was no objection to that in those days. Since the War, subsidies have been extended to industries in this country. But by now I do not believe that the House would sanction any further subsidies and I am sure that the country would not.
I would like to say a few words on this subject to the Committee, because it is one that touches us all very closely. There is no appeal which could be made which has a better prima facie case or is calculated to move our sympathies more than this case which has been put this evening. The way it was put by the various Members who spoke, their temper and language and knowledge of the subject, the deep human sympathy they showed, all those things move the Committee and make us wish that we could give them what they want. But the country is face to face with a very grave financial situation. We are trying, some may think very unsuccessfully, to resist new expenditure and cut down old. Whether we reach the figure suggested by the Geddes Committee or fall short of it, there is no doubt that in cutting down much hardship will be caused, hardship to individuals and to groups and classes of men; and if the House
of Commons is. going to let its heart rule its head each time those who are about to be hurt by the application of the axe cry out for help there will be no economies possible at all, and our finances will become worse. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Sir C. Lowther) and I hope that he was less nervous than I was when I was making my maiden speech. It is quite true that the amount of subsidy required to meet the particular case to which he referred would be small, and I do not believe that it would be a large amount if it lasted over the term of five years. But if we concede the principle, even though it is only to the width of a finger, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, we should next have an appeal, delivered possibly with less eloquence but with equal force of argument, that would ask for a subsidy the breadth of a man's hand, and so we should go on. If you give one subsidy you cannot resist another, and as long as you lay down the rule that you are not going to give subsidies to industry in this country directly or indirectly you cannot break it.
It is true that this contract at this moment, in this extraordinarily depressed state of the world's spelter market, may be, and probably is, operating as a subsidy to Australia. I would remind him that in the making of this contract there was nothing in the nature of a subsidy, either contemplated or granted, and such subsidy as exists to-day is purely fortuitous and temporary. The contract is with us, and we have to administer it. I shall do my best, in conjunction with my hon. Friends, to make the best bargain I can for this Committee and for the taxpayer, in getting rid of as much of the products from Australia as we can. As I said earlier, when the opportunity presents itself I shall do all I can to bring the contract to an end, holding as I do that the very last function of a Government should be, in times of peace at least, to indulge in ordinary commercial trading.

Captain COOTE: I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend that he has missed one point of criticism directed at him. He says quite truly that the state of our national finance is desperate, and he deplores that any Government should
undertake a policy of subsidisation. That is not the whole point. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman was in the House at Question Time to-day when it was pointed out that the Government had deliberately undertaken to increase the monies available for the relief of unemployment from, I think, £10,000,000 to. £18,000,000, of which £13,000,000 had been expended. Some part of the criticism upon this Vote has been on these lines—it is not asked that there should be subsidies, but it is asked that ordinary measures of exploitation should be undertaken which would enable the industry to compete, at least on reasonable terms, with the zinc concentrates coming from Australia. That is a point I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider. It is not an altogether immaterial point. As he truly says, subsidies would be unfortunate. Anything which the Government can do to increase the terms upon which the British industry can reasonably compete with the material which is imported into this country under the terms of the Government contract should be undertaken. The right hon. Gentleman made no reply on that point, but it seems to me here is a field where reasonable exploitation of the national resources could be undertaken. I can only express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with it.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in 1916, when Mr. Hughes was over here, the arrangements for this contract were made. On page 7 of the Estimates, under Sub-heading Q 11, we find:
Provision to cover the estimated cost to. His Majesty's Government of zinc concentrates which the Government may be required to take during 1921–22 under a contract entered into on 9th April, 1918.
Under the next Sub-heading we find:
Provision to cover the estimated cost to His Majesty's Government of spelter which the Government may be required to take at market prices during 1921–22 under a contract entered into on 23rd April, 1917.
Therefore, according to this Supplementary Estimate, two contracts were entered into, one in April, 1918, and the other in April, 1917. I have no doubt there is an explanation, but it does not seem to tally with the statement of my right hon. Friend, neither does it tally with the statement that the Government was not responsible for the contract. I
do not say that my hon. Friend was at the Board of Trade, but he was a member of this Government in 1917 and 1918.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Unfortunately for me I had not the good luck to have the right hon. Baronet in his place when I was making my statement. I pointed out then that there were two original contracts, one for spelter and one for concentrates. Both bore the date 23rd April, 1917, and both were the result of negotiations which lasted over many months. The contract for cencentrates was amended by a subsequent contract, dated 1918.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is perfectly clear that the actual contract was made when this Government was in power. It does not matter when the negotiations were entered into. It may have been by a preceding Government, but the contract which was binding, was not entered into until this Government was in power. Therefore they cannot say that it happened before this Government was responsible.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: I very much regret to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that he intends to get out of this contract as soon as he possibly can. I understood him to say that very good expert opinion had led him to believe that at the end of 10 years, with normal trade and the ordinary ups and downs, there was every probability that the profits would quite balance any loss that had been made. If that is so, and if he is, as he said, dealing with the matter purely from the business point of view, surely it would be in order to let the contract go on. I should regret the cancelling of the contract on other grounds. If we follow out the causes of unemployment we shall find that in a great many cases it has been

brought about because contracts have been cancelled—not only between individuals in this country but between this country and other countries. Granted that the Government made a bad contract when this was entered into, all of us who are blessed with what we in Lancashire term after wit will realise that that is so. But had the War been carried on another two years, none of us in Febraury or March, 1918, could have felt any sense of security that it would have been over in November that year, and this contract would have had a very different appearance. The Government, even more than any individual, ought to show that great respect for a contract, and for the keeping of a contract, which has always been the good reputation of Englishmen.

Mr. LAMBERT: Before we vote, I should like to ask a question with regard to the sum of £62,500 "for provision to cover the estimated cost to His Majesty's Government of spelter which the Government may be required to take at market prices during 1921–1922." Why should there be a loss on that when they are required to take it at market prices?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Estimate, he will see that the amount taken is estimated at £62,500, with an Appropriation-in-Aid of £52,500. The reason for that is that, spelter being deliverable in the United Kingdom, we cannot be quite certain whether we should have, during the last few days or weeks of the financial year, such a quantity of spelter arriving and put upon is as we should not be able to sell.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £601,100, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: "Ayes, 79; Noes, 167.

Division No 12.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hancock, John George


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hartshorn, Vernon


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Hayward, Evan


Barton, sir William (Oldham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Galbraith, Samuel
Hirst, G. H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gillls, William
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Glanville, Harold James
Hogge, James Myles


Bromfield, William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Holmes, J. Stanley


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Coine)
Irving, Dan


Cairns, John
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, T. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Kiley, James Daniel


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Lawson, John James


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)


Lunn, William
Rendall, Atheistan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Robertson, John
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Mosley, Oswald
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Sexton, James
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Wolmer, Viscount


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Parry, Lieut-Colonel Thomas Henry
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Poison, Sir Thomas A.
Swan, J. E.
Mr. W. Smith and Mr. Wignall.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Falcon, Captain Michael
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Forestler-Walker, L.
Perring, William George


Armitage, Robert
Forrest, Walter
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Atkey, A. R.
Gee, Captain Robert
Purchase, H. G.


Bagley, Captain E. Asbton
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Rae, H. Norman


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gould, James C.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Remnant, Sir James


Barnston, Major Harry
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Renwick, Sir George


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Haslam, Lewis
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


sell, Lieut.-Col. w. c. H. [Devizes]
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichtster)
Hills, Major John Waller
Rodger, A. K.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hinds, John
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Seager, Sir William


Brown, Major D. C.
Howard, Major S. G.
Seddon, J. A.


Bruton, Sir James
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Johnson, sir Stanley
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Keliaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major S. Strang


Carr, W. Theodore
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Casey, T. W.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stewart, Gershom


Cautley, Henry Strother
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm, Aston)
Lloyd, George Butler
Sturrock, J. Leng


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ting d'n)
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lorden, John William
Sutherland, Sir William


Clough, Sir Robert
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Taylor, J.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Cory, sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Maddocks, Henry
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Manville, Edward
Wallace, J.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Moison, Major John Eisdale
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Davies, Thomas (Clrencester)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Windsor, Viscount


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wise, Frederick


Dean, Commander P. T.
Morris, Richard
Worsfold, T. Cato


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Murchison, C. K.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Nail, Major Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edgar, Clifford B.
Neal, Arthur
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
McCurdy.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)



Elveden, Viscount
Pearce, Sir William



Original Question put, and agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES (IRELAND) GRANT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,130,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for payment of a Grant-in-Aid
of Miscellaneous Services to be administered by the Provisional Government.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put and agreed to. —[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND EANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending 31st day of March, 1922, the sum of £2,961,704 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom." —[Mr. Hilton Young.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Ordered, "That the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members:

Mr. George Barker, Sir William Barton, Sir Reginald Blair, Sir Henry Craik, Sir David Davies, Mr. Forrest, Mr. Myers, Mr. D. D. Reid, Mr. Spencer,
Mr. Marshall Stevens, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Aneurin Williams, Colonel Sir Robert Williams, Sir Alfred Yeo, and Mr. Hilton Young, nominated Members of the Committee."

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That Five be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes after Eleven o'Clock.